[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING SMARTER: THE BENEFITS OF INVESTING
IN RESILIENCE AND MITIGATION
=======================================================================
(117-8)
REMOTE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 18, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-336 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
Vacancy
------ 7
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management
DINA TITUS, Nevada, Chair
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky District of Columbia
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
Puerto Rico CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida Vacancy
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management:
Opening statement............................................ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 75
WITNESSES
Russell J. Strickland, Executive Director, Maryland Emergency
Management Agency, on behalf of the National Emergency
Management Association:
Oral statement............................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Roy E. Wright, President and Chief Executive Officer, Insurance
Institute for Business and Home Safety:
Oral statement............................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Velma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer, Flood-Prepared
Communities Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts:
Oral statement............................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Ben Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability, Zurich North
America:
Oral statement............................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
John C. Fowke, Chairman, National Association of Home Builders:
Oral statement............................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 51
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus:
Statement of the BuildStrong Coalition....................... 6
Letter of March 17, 2021, from the SmarterSafer Coalition.... 9
Letter of March 18, 2021, from the National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association; National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; and
Portland Cement Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Daniel Webster................................................. 75
APPENDIX
Questions to Russell J. Strickland, Executive Director, Maryland
Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the National
Emergency Management Association, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus.................... 79
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 86
Questions to Roy E. Wright, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety,
from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus.................... 87
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 92
Questions to Velma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer,
Flood-Prepared Communities Initiative, The Pew Charitable
Trusts, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus.................... 93
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 102
Questions to Ben Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability, Zurich
North America, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus.................... 103
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 106
Questions to John C. Fowke, Chairman, National Association of
Home Builders, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus.................... 107
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 111
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
March 15, 2021
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Building Smarter: The
Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management will meet on Thursday, March 18, 2021,
at 2:00 p.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via
Cisco Webex, to receive testimony on ``Building Smarter: The
Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation.'' At the
hearing, Members will receive testimony from witnesses with
expertise in emergency management, mitigation and resilience,
insurance, and construction. The Subcommittee will hear from
the National Emergency Management Association, the Insurance
Institute for Business and Home Safety, the Pew Charitable
Trusts' Flood Prepared Communities program, Zurich North
America, and the National Association of Home Builders.
BACKGROUND
For the last several years, the United States has
experienced an increasing and unprecedented number of
significant hazard events--hurricanes, tornados, floods,
derechos, wildfires, abnormal heatwaves, and freezes--that have
impacted tens of millions of Americans and taken varying tolls
on countless communities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Disaster Preparedness: DRRA Implementation and FEMA
Readiness. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. 116th Congress, May 22,
2019. See also Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America:
Mitigating Damage and Recovering Quickly from Disasters. 115th
Congress, April 27, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decades of regular federal data collection and scientific
research and analysis, as well as private sector research
indicates that these types of events are increasing.\2\ A
review of requests for Federal emergency assistance and/or
disaster relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is accordingly on the rise as state, tribal,
territorial, and local governments' capacity to respond to and
recover from these events is quickly exceeded given the scale
and associated losses.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
``Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Events''. Available at:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.
\3\ Congressional Research Service. Stafford Act Declarations 1953-
2016: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress (R42702). August
28, 2017. See also FEMA, Declared Disasters. Available at https://
www.fema.gov/disasters/disaster-declarations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance
company, reported that between 1980 and 2011, North America
suffered $1.06 trillion in total losses, including $510 billion
in insured losses, and an increase in weather-related events
five-fold over the previous three decades.\4\ In 2005, it was
reported that since 1952, the cost of natural disasters to the
federal government more than tripled, as a function of gross
domestic product.\5\ These statistics have only grown in the
intervening years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Munich Re (2012). Severe weather in North America--Perils Risk
Insurance. Munich, Germany: Muchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft.
\5\ The Princeton University Geoscience 499 Class, The Increasing
Costs of U.S. Natural Disasters. Geotimes, November 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For several congresses, this Subcommittee has examined
increasing costs of emergency assistance and disaster relief,
and has worked to enact reforms and enhancements to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended) to bolster federal
assistance via FEMA to state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments to invest in mitigation and resilience, including
investments in natural infrastructure.\6\ Most recently, in
2018 the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA, P.L. 115-254,
Division D) provided additional assistance and eligibility for
both pre- and post-disaster mitigation from all hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Building Community
Resilience with Nature-Based Solutions: A Guide for Local Communities.
August 2020. Available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
2020-08/fema_riskmap_nature-based-solutions-guide_
2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are numerous causes that may be driving these rising
disaster costs, including population growth and increased
density in disaster-prone areas, changes in weather and fire
events, and changes in disaster relief programs. In a 2013
report to Congress--responding to a provision of the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act (P.L. 113-2, Sec. 1111)--FEMA
acknowledged the increase in the number of extreme disaster
events and increased vulnerabilities throughout the United
States due to shifting demographics, aging infrastructure, land
use, and construction practices.\7\ Further, the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) analyzed data from over 1,300 major
disasters since 1989, and adjusting for inflation, found that
FEMA obligated more than $178 billion for these disasters.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FEMA, National Strategy Recommendations: Future Disaster
Preparedness. September 6, 2013. Available at http://www.fema.gov/
media-library-data/bd125e67fb2bd37f8d609cbd71b835ae/
FEMA+National+Strategy+Recommendations+(V4).pdf.
\8\ CRS Memo Data Analysis for House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, January 14, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2020, FEMA released the ``Building Codes Save:
A Nationwide Study,'' a nearly decade-long assessment of losses
avoided through the adoption of hazard-resistant consensus-
based building codes and standards.\9\ The study found that 65
percent of U.S. counties, cities, and towns had not yet adopted
modern building codes--defined as codes developed since
2000.\10\ Analysis of the data shows savings in multiple
hundreds of millions of dollars for disaster response and
recovery costs across disaster-impacted areas with modern
codes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ FEMA, Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study. November 2020.
Available at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/
building-science/building-codes-save-study.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISASTER RECOVERY REFORM ACT OF 2018 (DRRA)
The DRRA was initially crafted to address the rising costs
of disasters in the United States and was intended to reform
federal disaster programs to ensure communities are better
prepared for future hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes,
wildfires, and other disasters.\12\ It incentivizes states to
invest in stronger mitigation measures and resilient
rebuilding--which will reduce the future loss of life and the
rising costs of disasters--to ensure that communities are well-
equipped to better prepare for and withstand disasters of all
kinds.\13\ The DRRA strengthened and established a consistent
funding stream for pre-disaster mitigation. A section of the
DRRA as originally reported by the Committee (later enacted as
Section 20606 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, P.L. 115-
123) also directed FEMA to incentivize mitigation by increasing
the federal cost share. That section has not been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ H. Rept. 115-1098. Available at https://www.congress.gov/115/
crpt/hrpt1098/CRPT-115hrpt1098.pdf
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS) has
found significant cost savings in mitigation projects and the
adoption of consensus-based building codes and standards. In
examining code aspects related to riverine flood, wind, and
earthquake, the NIBS concluded:
LThere is a benefit of $11 for every $1 spent by
designing buildings to meet modern consensus-based codes and
standards such as those developed by the International Code
Council (ICC), versus the prior generation of codes represented
by 1990-era design and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Institute of Building Sciences ``Natural Hazard
Mitigation Saves Study.'' Available at https://www.nibs.org/page/
mitigationsaves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHazard mitigation projects funded with federal
grants provided by FEMA, the U.S. Economic Development
Administration (EDA), and the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) can save the country $6 in future
disaster response and recovery costs for every $1 spent,
according to more than two decades worth of data on these
grants.\15\
LGenerally, investing in certain mitigation
measures above and beyond select requirements of the 2015
International Codes (I-Codes)--the model building codes
developed by the ICC--can save an additional $4 for every $1
spent for certain hazards.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MITIGATION ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE FROM FEMA
FEMA administers mitigation assistance via three main
Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs: Stafford Act Sec.
203 Predisaster Mitigation Assistance (PDM, 42 U.S.C. 5133);
Stafford Act Sec. 404 Hazard Mitigation (HMGP, 42 U.S.C.
5170c); and the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended, Sec.
1366 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA, 42 U.S.C. 4104c).
Additionally, Public Assistance (PA) provided for
infrastructure repair or replacement and Individual Assistance
(IA) provided to individuals and households for residential
repair or temporary forms of housing is subject to statutory,
regulatory, and policy requirements to bring facilities up to
the most recent consensus-based codes and standards. The goal
of these various forms of assistance is to ensure that our
nation's citizens and communities are resilient to various
hazards.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ FEMA. Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. Available at
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation-assistance-
guidance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDM (BRIC)
DRRA Sec. 1234 established of a steady stream of funding
for a nationally competitive predisaster mitigation program.
FEMA undertook a complete redesign of its previous iteration of
Stafford Sec. 203 assistance and developed the Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. As
amended, the Stafford Act now allows the President to set aside
from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) an amount equal to six
percent of the estimated aggregate amount of assistance
provided pursuant to Sections 403, 406, 407, 408, 410, 416, and
428 for major disasters.
The application window for the first grant cycle of BRIC
closed at the end of January 2021. Grants are provided at 100
percent federal cost share and are capped at a maximum of $50
million.\18\ Of the states, 49 of 50 submitted applications
totaling $3.6 billion for the $500 million available for the
cycle; application review is currently underway, with awards
expected in summer 2021.\19\ Under BRIC ``mitigation projects
must, at a minimum, be in conformance with the latest published
editions (meaning either of the two most recently published
editions) of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications,
and standards that incorporate the latest hazard-resistant
designs.'' \20\ Additionally, FEMA may fund the development,
adoption, evaluation, and enhancement of building codes and
standards with BRIC awards.\21\ In October 2020, the Trump
administration set aside $500 million of the eligible $3.7
billion from the COVID-19 disaster declarations for the PDM/
BRIC set-aside in the DRF.\22\ Chairs DeFazio and Titus and
Ranking Members Graves and Katko sent a letter urging then FEMA
Administrator Peter Gaynor and then OMB Director Russell Vought
to reconsider the decision, and fully fund the set-aside to
ensure a robust BRIC program in the coming years.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FEMA. Fiscal Year 2020 Notices of Funding Opportunities for
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants. Available at https://www.fema.gov/
grants/mitigation/fy2020-nofo
\19\ FEMA BRIC program staff briefing call with Committee staff.
February 24, 2021.
\20\ FY 2020 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities,
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). Available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_fy20-bric-notice-of-
funding-opportunity_federal-register_August-2020.pdf
\21\ Stafford Sec. 203(g)(10).
\22\ CRS. FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation: The Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program (IN11515). December 28,
2020. Available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11515
\23\ Letter from Ch. DeFazio, RM Graves, Chair Titus, and Chair
Katko to FEMA Admin. Gaynor and OMB Dir. Vought. October 15, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HMGP
Stafford Sec. 404 provides a regular stream of post-
disaster mitigation funding to states, tribes, and territories.
For disasters under $2 billion in overall Stafford assistance,
the HMGP grant is 15 percent of the aggregate assistance. This
percentage decreases as disaster costs grow; 10 percent for
disasters more than $2 billion and less than $10 billion, and
7.5 percent for disasters more than $10 billion and less than
$35.333 billion. The federal cost share for HMGP grants is 75
percent.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Stafford Act, Sec. 404(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HMGP grants are managed by states, tribes, and territories,
and are available for use broadly, beyond declared disaster
areas for multiple types of hazards. Additionally, HMGP funds
may fund the development, adoption, evaluation, and enhancement
of building codes and standards.\25\ The period of performance
for these grants is exhausted seven years from the date of
declaration and following an opportunity for extension.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Stafford Act, Sec. 404(f) and (g).
\26\ FEMA. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Available at: https://
www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HMGP encourages the use of building codes and standards--
such as the American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural
Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 24-14, Flood Resistant Design
and Construction--wherever possible, and sub-applicants to
states, tribes, and territories must document that their
project is feasible and effective at mitigating risks of
hazards.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 44 CFR Sec. 206.434(c). See also, FEMA 2015 Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Guidance and Addendum, available at https://www.fema.gov/
grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation-assistance-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMA
Flood Mitigation Assistance is not under the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as it is
authorized by the Committee on Financial Services as part of
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FMA is a
competitive grant program that provides funding to state,
tribal, territorial and local governments for projects that
reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to
buildings insured by the NFIP.
In the fiscal year 2020 grant cycle, which closed in
January 2021, $200 million was available for FMA. Up to $4
million is available for project scoping (max grant award per
applicant is $600,000), up to $70 million is available for
community flood mitigation projects (max amount of assistance
available to any NFIP-participating community is $30 million),
and $126 million will be awarded for technical assistance,
flood hazard mitigation planning, and individual flood
mitigation projects.\28\ The federal cost share for FMA grants
is typically 75 percent, although mitigation projects for
repetitive loss properties can adjust to 90 percent, and severe
repetitive loss properties up to 100 percent federal cost
share.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ FEMA. Fiscal Year 2020 Notices of Funding Opportunities for
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants. Available at: https://
www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/fy2020-nofo.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PA)
FEMA provides PA to restore facilities based on pre-
disaster design and function. However, conformity with the
latest published editions of relevant consensus-based codes and
standards, incorporating the latest hazard-resistant designs is
required. Additionally, establishing minimum acceptable
criteria for the design, construction, and maintenance of
residential structures and facilities may be eligible for
assistance for the purposes of protecting the health, safety,
and general welfare of the facility's users against
disasters.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 44 CFR Sec. 206.226(d)(1)-(5). See also 44 CFR Sec.
206.226(f)(2), Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG)
(2020), and FEMA Recovery Interim Policy FP 104-009-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE (IA)
In providing IA, FEMA adheres to all applicable codes and
standards for the multiple types of assistance that may be
available for disaster survivors, pursuant to Stafford Sec.
408(c)(2)(i) and 44 C.F.R. Part 206, Subpart D (Federal
Assistance to Individuals and Households). When applicable,
forms of IA also comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA); accessibility-related standards found in the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act and associated ADA Accessibility Guidelines
and HUD's Design Details for Accessible Disaster Relief
Housing; 24 C.F.R. 3280, Subpart A (Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards); 44 C.F.R. Part 9, Subpart A
(Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands); 24 C.F.R.
982.401 (Housing Quality Standards (HQS), Subpart 1 Dwelling
Unit: Housing Quality Standards, Subsidy Standards, Inspection
and Maintenance); 44 C.F.R. 206.117(b)(4) (Permanent and Semi-
permanent Housing Construction); Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association and California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards
and/or the Toxic Substances Control Act Title VI requirements
for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products found
in recreational vehicles; and Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards (UFAS).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ FEMA. Response to Committee RFI on applicable codes and
standards for IA. Provided March 10, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MITIGATION FRAMEWORK LEADERSHIP GROUP (MITFLG)
In the wake of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina,
several reform efforts were authorized by the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act (P.L. 109-295, Title VI),
including the establishment of the National Mitigation
Framework, which included the creation of the Mitigation
Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG). FEMA chairs the MitFLG,
which is responsible for organizing mitigation efforts across
the federal government, in cooperation and coordination with
state, local, tribal, and territorial public-sector
representatives. Additionally, the MitFLG assesses the
effectiveness of these capabilities across the United
States.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ FEMA. Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG).
Available at: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-
preparedness/frameworks/mitigation/mitflg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second edition of the National Mitigation Framework was
released in June 2016. It focuses on a whole of community
approach to mitigation and resilience, with a penultimate goal
of nurturing a national culture of preparedness and reducing
the impacts of disaster and the resultant loss of life and
property.\33\ In August 2019, the MitFLG released the National
Investment Mitigation Strategy report (NIMS), which seeks to
identify and measure the effectiveness of mitigation
investments, and inform decisions on when and where to make
investments using the whole of community approach that has been
leveraged in other phases of emergency management. The NIMS
encourages investment in both pre- and post-disaster
mitigation--across the whole of community--with three shared
goals: 1) showing how mitigation investments reduce risk, 2)
coordination of mitigation investments to reduce risk, and 3)
making mitigation investment standard practice.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ FEMA. National Mitigation Framework (June 2016). Available at:
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/
National_Mitigation_Framework2nd_june2016.pdf
\34\ FEMA/MitFLG. National Mitigation Investment Strategy.
Available at: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/
fema_national-mitigation-investment-strategy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has long
acknowledged that ``limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal
Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks'' is a high
risk area.\35\ FEMA, and the federal disaster relief and
mitigation assistance it provides, combined with the efforts of
the MitFLG, can and should play a significant role in reducing
this exposure--ultimately ensuring that taxpayer resources are
being invested in projects that are buying down future risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Government Accountability Office. Limiting the Federal
Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks.
Available at: https://www.gao.gov/highrisk/limiting-federal-
governments-fiscal-exposure-better-managing-climate-change-risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing will highlight best practices across FEMA's
efforts in encouraging and growing resilience and mitigation
across the nation, as well as identify additional opportunities
for continued enhancement, whether expanding eligible
activities to mitigate against additional vulnerabilities to
growing hazards, or better alignment between FEMA's pre- and
post-disaster assistance programs.
WITNESS LIST
LRussell Strickland, Executive Director, Maryland
Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the National
Emergency Management Association
LRoy Wright, President & CEO, Insurance Institute
for Business and Home Safety
LVelma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer,
The Pew Charitable Trusts
LBen Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability,
Zurich North America
LJohn ``Chuck'' Fowke, Chairman, National
Association of Home Builders
BUILDING SMARTER: THE BENEFITS OF INVESTING IN RESILIENCE AND
MITIGATION
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex,
Hon. Dina Titus (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present in person: Ms. Titus, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Norton, Mr.
Garamendi, Mr. Webster, Mr. Massie, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Mr.
Guest, and Mr. Graves of Louisiana.
Present remotely: Ms. Davids, Mr. Pappas, Mrs. Napolitano,
and Ms. Van Duyne.
Ms. Titus. The hearing will come to order.
The chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time
during today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
For Members participating remotely, if a Member is
experiencing any connectivity issues, or any other technical
problems, please inform the committee staff as soon as possible
so you can receive assistance. I will make a good-faith effort
to provide every Member experiencing any kind of connectivity
issue an opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings.
It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking, and to keep your
microphone muted when not speaking to avoid inadvertent
background noise.
Should I hear any inadvertent background noise--dogs
barking, cats meowing, children playing--I will request that
the Member please mute their microphone.
And, finally, to insert a document into the record, please
have your staff email it to [email protected].
We want to say good afternoon to everybody who is watching
or participating and to thank our witnesses for being here
today.
This is the subcommittee's first hearing of the 117th
Congress. Before we get started, though, I would like to take a
minute to recognize and welcome Mr. Daniel Webster of Florida,
who is the new ranking member of the subcommittee. Our
subcommittee has the distinction of being the most productive
of any of the subcommittees under the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and I look forward to working
together with Mr. Webster to keep that record going as we
advance policies and programs that safeguard the lives and
livelihoods of the communities we serve.
Today's hearing is entitled ``Building Smarter: The
Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation.'' These are
two intertwined topics that have enjoyed bipartisan attention
and cooperation in the past.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is, perhaps,
responsible for the most significant amount of dedicated
funding for pre- and post-disaster mitigation, and it leads the
whole-of-Federal Government strategy to build a more resilient
Nation. Ranking Member Webster is no stranger to these issues.
As he noted to me, he previously worked in the Florida
Legislature to enact the State's updated building codes in
1996, following the devastating impacts of Hurricane Andrew.
Those updated building codes are one example of a cost-
effective mitigation strategy, and they have led to more
resilient communities all across Florida.
In insurance and emergency management circles, Florida's
2004 hurricane season is infamous for four major storms,
Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne, that crisscrossed the State
during a 6-week span, leaving virtually no square inch
untouched.
In the wake of those storms, the Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety conducted a study of residential
construction comparing homes built before and after the 1996
adoption of the bolstered codes to examine the impacts on
insurance claims. The IBHS study found that homes constructed
after the new codes saw 60 percent fewer claims, and those
claims were 42 percent less costly than the homes constructed
before the strengthened codes.
Now, that is just one example, but we know that when homes,
businesses, and other infrastructure are built stronger from
the get-go, or are built back stronger following disasters,
they are less likely to be seriously damaged in future events.
That ability to bounce back faster is a measure of their
resilience. Unfortunately, as more American communities grapple
with ever increasingly severe natural hazards, we don't have to
look hard to find examples of communities that we all represent
that have been knocked down by recent disasters.
Last month, for example, Texas electric utilities suffered
a multiday catastrophic failure resulting from an unusual deep
freeze. Something similar happened in 2011 and also in 1989,
and one of the recommendations of the multiple after-action
reviews in 2011 was for generating companies to invest in
insulation for equipment and heaters or other technologies that
are commonly employed by their counterparts in areas more prone
to cold weather.
While the power generators are typically investor-owned
utilities and ineligible for mitigation assistance from FEMA,
their failure to invest in this type of mitigation led Governor
Abbott to request a major disaster declaration for all 254
Texas counties, to provide relief to the 4\1/2\ million
households that lost power, and to the public buildings and
other infrastructure damaged by the deep freeze.
In a briefing from Members of Congress and their staffs
last month, the State's emergency manager, Chief Nim Kidd,
estimated that the resulting damages experienced by public
buildings, private businesses, and residents from last month's
rolling blackouts from days' long power outages would likely
result in a need for more Federal disaster assistance, more
than was allocated to respond and recover from 2018's Hurricane
Harvey, and that was the State's costliest natural disaster up
until that point.
And it was reported on Tuesday that at least 57 Texans lost
their lives as a result of severe winter weather--from
hypothermia, carbon monoxide poisoning, medical equipment
failures, falls, and car crashes. We haven't even touched upon
the ever-increasing threat of wildfires across the West and the
expansive risks to low-lying communities from rising tides or
storm surges.
The majority of the assistance FEMA provides in response to
Presidential disaster declarations funds the repair or
replacement of infrastructure. In addition to this Public
Assistance funding, the Stafford Act provides for 15 percent of
eligible disaster costs to be sent to disaster-impacted States
to be used in post-disaster mitigation projects. This is
referred to as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
These projects have provided a significant return on
investment to the taxpayer. Depending on the type of project,
the National Institute of Building Sciences has demonstrated
between $4 and $11 in reduced disaster recovery costs resulting
from federally funded mitigation projects. Let me repeat that:
A return between $4 and $11 depending on the project, and that
is a key point for us to remember.
In 2018, following significant analysis work by this
subcommittee, Congress amended the Stafford Act with the
passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act. For the first
time, taking lessons learned from the successful Post-disaster
Mitigation Program, we decided that FEMA should have a
similarly funded Pre-disaster Mitigation Program. This program
existed prior to the reform bill, but was inconsistently funded
by our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. We thought
we needed to take a closer look at this and found that the
programs should differ from the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program, because it would be nationally competitive.
For a State like Nevada, that can make a huge difference.
We have 86 percent of our land owned by the Federal Government,
so we don't get much disaster relief, so pre-disaster
mitigation would be a game changer.
FEMA's program is called BRIC, Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities. It is too soon to tell how
effective BRIC is, but just to look at the figures, the first
application cycle had $500 million available; applications
totaled more than $3.6 billion. So, obviously, there is a great
demand.
So we want to examine what works and what is flawed in
FEMA's approach to mitigation and resilience, how the Agency
can further empower States, Tribes, Territories and localities
to better leverage this type of program.
I look forward to all of our witnesses' and our Members'
perspectives, and working with Ranking Member Webster and our
colleagues to advance future legislative efforts out of this
subcommittee to provide FEMA the resources and tools that it
needs to make American communities more resilient, more
resistant to predictable hazards.
[Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
Good afternoon, and thank you to our witnesses.
This is the Subcommittee's first hearing of the 117th Congress, but
before we get started I just want to take a moment to recognize Mr.
Daniel Webster of Florida, the new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.
Our Subcommittee has the distinction of being the most productive
of any under Transportation and Infrastructure and I look forward to
working together to keep that record going as we advance policies and
programs that safeguard the lives and livelihoods of the communities we
represent.
Today's hearing is titled, ``Building Smarter: The Benefits of
Investing in Resilience and Mitigation''--two intertwined topics that
have enjoyed bipartisan attention and cooperation.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is perhaps responsible for
the most significant amount of dedicated funding for pre- and post-
disaster mitigation, and leads the whole of the federal government's
strategy to build a more resilient nation.
Ranking Member Webster is no stranger to these issues. As he noted
to me, he previously worked in the Florida Legislature to enact the
state's updated building codes in 1996 following the devastating
impacts of Hurricane Andrew.
Those updated building codes are one example of a cost-effective
mitigation strategy. And they have led to more resilient communities
all across Florida.
In insurance and emergency management circles, Florida's 2004
hurricane season is infamous for the four storms--Charley, Frances,
Ivan, and Jeanne--that crisscrossed the state during a six-week span,
leaving virtually no square inch of the state untouched.
In the wake of those storms, the Insurance Institute for Business
and Home Safety conducted a study of residential construction,
comparing homes built before and after the 1996 adoption of the
bolstered codes to examine the impacts on insurance claims.
The IBHS study found that homes constructed after the new codes saw
60 percent fewer claims, and those claims were 42 percent less costly
than the homes constructed before the strengthened codes.
That's just one example, but we know that when homes, businesses,
and other infrastructure are built stronger from the get-go, or are
built back stronger following disaster, they're less likely to be
seriously damaged during future events. That ability to bounce back
faster is a measure of their resilience.
Unfortunately, as more American communities grapple with ever
increasingly severe natural hazards, we don't have to look hard to find
examples of communities that we all represent that have been knocked
down by recent disasters.
Last month Texas electric utilities suffered a multi-day
catastrophic failure resulting from an unusual deep freeze.
Something similar happened in 2011 and also in 1989, and one of the
recommendations of the multiple after action reviews in 2011 was for
generating companies to invest in insulation for equipment and heaters
or other technologies that are commonly employed by their counterparts
in areas more prone to cold weather.
While the power generators are typically investor-owned utilities
and ineligible for mitigation assistance from FEMA, their failure to
invest in this type of mitigation led Governor Abbott to request a
major disaster declaration for all 254 Texas counties to provide relief
to the four and a half million households that lost power and to the
public buildings and other infrastructure damaged by the deep freeze.
In a briefing for Members of Congress and their staffs last month,
the state's emergency manager, Chief Nim Kidd, estimated that the
resulting damages experienced by public buildings, private businesses,
and residences from last month's rolling blackouts from days-long power
outages would likely result in the need for more federal disaster
assistance than was allocated to respond and recover from 2018's
Hurricane Harvey, the state's costliest natural disaster to that point.
And it was reported on Tuesday that at least 57 Texans lost their lives
as a result of the severe winter weather--from hypothermia, carbon
monoxide poisoning, medical equipment failure, falls, and car crashes.
We haven't even touched upon the ever-increasing threat of
wildfires across the West, or the expansive risk to low-lying
communities from rising tides or storm surges.
The majority of the assistance FEMA provides in response to
Presidential disaster declaration funds the repair or replacement of
infrastructure. In addition to this Public Assistance funding, the
Stafford Act provides for 15 percent of eligible disaster costs to be
sent to disaster-impacted states to be used in post-disaster mitigation
projects--this is referred to as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP).
These projects have provided a significant return on investment to
the taxpayer: depending on the type of project, the National Institute
of Building Sciences (NIBS) has demonstrated between $4 and $11 in
reduced disaster recovery costs resulting from federally-funded
mitigation projects--ranging from the adoption of stronger building
codes to physical infrastructure projects.
In 2018, following significant analysis and work by this
Subcommittee, Congress amended the Stafford Act with the passage of the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act. For the first time, taking the lessons
learned from the successful post-disaster mitigation program, we
decided that FEMA should similarly fund a Pre-disaster Mitigation (PDM)
program.
This program existed prior to the reform bill, but was
inconsistently funded by our colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee. This program would differ from the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program in that it would be nationally competitive, with a goal of
making investments in mitigation and resilience before disaster could
strike.
For a state like Nevada, which rarely receives Hazard Mitigation
assistance due to more than 84 percent of the state being federal lands
and our few and far between Presidential disaster declarations, the new
Pre-Disaster Mitigation program could be a game changer for communities
I represent in Clark County, where an investment in a transformative
mitigation project has the potential to benefit a significant number of
people and businesses.
FEMA is calling the new Pre-Disaster Mitigation program ``BRIC'',
for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities.
It's too soon to tell how effective BRIC is, but the first
application cycle closed at end of January for a pot of $500 million
dollars. FEMA received nearly a thousand applications for projects
totaling more than $3.6 billion dollars.
The demand clearly exists across the nation for this kind of smart
investment. FEMA funding--as well as smaller pots of federal funding
for mitigation and resilience-focused projects--reduce future exposure
to the federal government on the disaster relief side of the ledger.
We'll examine what works and what's flawed in FEMA's approach to
mitigation and resilience, and how the Agency can further empower
states, tribes, territories, and localities to better leverage the
various types of available assistance to protect their communities.
I look forward to all of our witnesses' and Members' perspectives,
and working with Ranking Member Webster and our colleagues to advance
future legislative efforts out of this subcommittee to provide FEMA the
resources and tools needed to help make American communities more
resilient to predictable hazards.
Before I recognize Ranking Member Webster for his opening remarks,
I ask unanimous consent to insert two items for the record.
First, a statement from the BuildStrong Coalition, which has been
such a leader on these issues. And I believe a few of our witnesses
today are also proud members of BuildStrong.
Additionally, the Committee has received a letter from the
SmarterSafer Coalition outlining its priorities in this space, as well.
Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Titus. I thank you for your attention. And I now
recognize Ranking Member Webster for his opening remarks.
I ask unanimous consent--before you begin, Mr. Webster, if
you will indulge me--unanimous consent to insert two items into
the record. One is a statement from the BuildStrong Coalition,
which has been a leader on these issues. I believe a few of our
witnesses today are actually members of BuildStrong. Also, the
committee has received a letter from the SmarterSafer Coalition
outlining its priorities in this space.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement of the BuildStrong Coalition, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Dina Titus
On March 18, the Subcommittee will hold its first legislative
hearing, ``Building Smarter: The Benefits of Investing in Resilience
and Mitigation.'' Chairwoman Titus and Ranking Member Webster are to be
commended for leading the committee in prioritizing this initial
hearing on mitigation and resilience investments to address the rising
costs and losses associated with disasters, including how mitigating
disaster impacts intersect with climate adaptation and serves as a core
component of the national conversation on resilient infrastructure and
communities. As the Committee considers the next chapter of disaster
policy and legislation, the BuildStrong Coalition is honored to
continue our role to drive the focus on laws, policies, and programs
that aid in the creation of a disaster resilient nation. We remain
ready to continue this work and are prepared to serve as a resource to
advance your commitment to enhancing our country's resilience profile.
The BuildStrong Coalition, formed in 2011 to respond to an
increasing number of severe disasters, is made up of a diverse group of
members representing firefighters, emergency responders, emergency
managers, insurers, engineers, architects, contractors, and
manufacturers, as well as consumer organizations, code specialists, and
many others committed to building a more disaster resilient nation. The
BuildStrong Coalition has been a partner with this Committee in its
work to investigate causes of, and devise the solutions to, the rising
cost of disasters in the U.S. since you initiated this conversation in
2013. We have been honored to present witnesses and participants in
hearings, roundtables, and briefings to identify opportunities for
policy changes that promote mitigation and the smart investment of
federal resources to address our country's increasing number of severe
and costly weather events, including informing several provisions of
the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254).
In the face of growing climate risk, we have been focused on what
legislative changes and policy initiatives are needed to appropriately
incentivize smart mitigation and resilience activities and practices,
while also removing the challenges and obstacles that may stand in the
way or hinder the progress of disaster resilience. We implore the
Committee to use this hearing as a launching pad for the next
bipartisan legislative package to shape the resilience conversation
across this country--to create a Resilient America.
This Committee stands poised to increase disaster resilience in the
U.S. and ensure that disaster resilience remains at the forefront on
the infrastructure, COVID-19 recovery, and disaster assistance reform
conversation. This is the Committee's opportunity to influence the
overall national resilience strategy and establish the framework for
the next chapter in increasing disaster resilience in the U.S.,
including how resilience intersects with adaptation and responds to
climate impacts, and is a core component of the national resilience
conversation. This Committee must fill the leadership role in
addressing climate impacts by acting on legislation that incentivizes
and provides resources to facilitate smart, climate-conscious behaviors
and mitigation and removes the moral hazards and policy impediments
inhibiting decision makers from creating resilient systems and
communities. The BuildStrong Coalition has developed the following
policy recommendations and principles that are critical, supported by
data and science, and should be included in the Committee's next
legislative package on community resilience.
I. Secure More Resources for Mitigation
Congress should increase the funding for retrofits and investments
in resilience before the next disaster, climate impact, or catastrophic
failure.
Mitigation saves lives, property, and taxpayer money. Mitigation
also saves the environment. But the federal resources to help build
state and local capacity and fund risk-reducing, cost-effective
mitigation projects that harden critical lifeline infrastructure and
help individuals invest in residential resilience are woefully
inadequate. FEMA and other Federal Agencies need more tools to help
impacted communities recover smarter and stronger and end the cycle of
build, damage, rebuild.
Legislation is needed to:
Direct expired, unspent FEMA mitigation assistance to
FEMA's new pre-disaster mitigation grant program, the Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program.
Increase the set aside for pre-disaster mitigation (BRIC
program) from 6% to 15%.
Authorize Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding
statewide for all states that requested hazard mitigation assistance
under their major disaster declaration requests for COVID-19.
And we know that this is a smart use of Federal resources that will
save taxpayer dollars. Federal funding that promotes better land use,
modern science applied to home construction, and increased mitigation
measures can dramatically reduce the devastation brought by these
disasters. Based on the findings of the National Institute of Building
Sciences (NIBS):
Adopting Model Building Codes Saves $11 per $1 Invested
Federal Mitigation Grants Save $6 per $1 Invested
Exceeding Codes Save $4 per $1 Invested
Mitigating Infrastructure Saves $4 per $1 Invested
II. Drive Resilient Homes and Communities through Strong Building Codes
Congress should create incentives for building stronger and tie
existing federal funding streams to the adoption and enforcement of
strong, modern building codes, in order to better protect homes,
families, and communities.
Individuals and communities are kept safe in times of disasters
through the strength of their homes and the infrastructure that
provides critical resources and services in affected areas. This is
particularly prevalent as we learn lessons from COVID-19 and begin to
understand how to increase resilience to wildfires. Disaster-resilient
and sustainable construction and the use of stronger building codes
have been proven to save lives, reduce the damage of natural disasters,
and protect the environment. Unfortunately, only a handful of states
have adopted the most modern building codes, and many lack the
resources to adequately implement codes. To help correct this paradigm
at the federal level involves creating incentives that encourage state
and local governments to adopt modern building codes, while
simultaneously equipping communities with the tools and resources
needed to carry out meaningful enforcement regimes.
III. Resilient Lifeline Infrastructure
Congress should require investments in lifeline infrastructure and
those resources should be directed at risk-reducing, cost effective
investments to promote the hardening of lifeline infrastructure and
disaster-resilient construction and the adoption and implementation of
risk-reducing standards.
Lifeline infrastructure refers to electric power, water and
wastewater systems, natural gas and liquid fuel, telecommunication, and
transportation. Disruptions in these systems due to disasters threaten
lives and impede community recovery. By investing in the resilience of
these systems, we can reduce, if not eliminate, the impact of
disasters, allowing key infrastructure to be restored and reducing the
duration and cost of recovery. Through the application of the highest
building codes, standards, and technologies to these systems and
ensuring access to resources to invest in mitigation by non-profit
owners of infrastructure, we can ensure system-wide increases in
resilience in key lifeline infrastructure.
Disaster-resilient and sustainable construction and infrastructure
is important to reduce the damage of natural disasters and protect the
environment. This involves applying the highest codes and standards and
leveraging resources to support and incentivize the adoption and
enforcement of building codes and professional standards. This includes
standards that strengthen materials against all hazards including wind,
flood, seismic, and ice. Most importantly, all disaster recovery and
mitigation projects should incorporate smart technologies to improve
monitoring and distribution for lifeline infrastructure and require the
use of resilient and non-combustible materials standards for lifeline
infrastructure.
IV. Incentivize Individual Investments in Resilience
Congress should incentivize investments in resilience through tax
benefits, grant conditions, and easing administrative burdens.
In addition to more resources for mitigation and communities, both
public and private entities need incentives to drive their investments
in mitigation. Whether by supporting the creation of federal tax
incentives that reward resilient behavior, the development of
mitigation tax breaks, or other incentives, individuals and businesses
will find it easier to invest in resiliency, including undertaking
activities like retrofitting homes, if these resources are available.
This would also foster private sector investment in mitigation through
new financing opportunities. Targeted tax incentives and removing tax
penalties will encourage resilient construction techniques to withstand
damage from strong winds or flooding and prevent losses from wildfires
and seismic events.
Through these investments, homeowners and communities ultimately
save money through tax savings and avoided recovery costs and losses in
the next disaster.
V. Use Resilient American Products
Congress should ensure the use of resilient, American-made products
in the construction and retrofit of lifeline infrastructure.
Now more than ever, we need to support American jobs and American
products. An investment in resilience across American communities must
include long-term, non-emergency construction projects that maximize
the use of American-made goods, products, and materials. These efforts
create jobs and fuel the economic engines in our communities.
VI. Build Capacity
Congress should ensure that state, local, tribal, and regional
entities are given the tools and resources to increase capacity and
capability to identify risks and hazards and mitigate those risks
before the crisis occurs.
It is clear that for this country to be successful in enhancing our
resiliency, we must focus on capacity building for state and local
governments and turn to considerations of sustainability, adaptability,
and creative financial instruments that can be leveraged to drive
socially responsible investments in resilience. State, local, and
tribal governments must increase their ability to mitigate against all
hazards. Accordingly, they must increase their ability to identify
hazards and successfully implement these funds to accomplish selected
risk-reducing projects. Increased engagement and education efforts on
mitigation planning, program requirements, and opportunity awareness
will enhance community resilience across all levels of government.
Further, regulatory controls must be loosened to facilitate and
encourage public-private partnerships. Governments must work with the
private sector to increase community and national resilience. The
private sector is currently conducting high-level work throughout the
resilience and mitigation arena and there is tremendous opportunity to
utilize expertise and industry knowledge, take advantage of existing
programs, identify best practices, and incorporate lessons learned from
the private sector. By leveraging the private sector and encouraging
and facilitating public-private partnerships, we can maximize available
resources for the benefit of the entire country.
Conclusion
The BuildStrong Coalition calls on the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings and Emergency Management to take the next critical
step to drive disaster resilience across the nation through the
introduction of legislation that would effectuate these policy ideals,
changes in authority, development of incentives, and streamlining of
assistance to serve our communities in an equitable and
transformational way.
The BuildStrong Coalition and its members stand ready to partner
with the Committee as it moves toward the introduction of the next
piece of transformational disaster policy and legislation driving
mitigation and resilience against disaster and climate impacts. The
compelling arguments for these policy changes are grounded in
overwhelming science and evidence. We would be honored to present
subject matter experts, data, and best practices, as well as
participants in hearings, roundtables, and briefings--a role we have
filled many times in the past. We are excited to join congressional
leaders like you as we identify opportunities for policy changes that
promote disaster resilience and the smart investment of federal
resources to address our country's vulnerable homes and communities,
aging infrastructure, and the increasing number of severe and costly
weather events. Together, we can help save the lives and property of
our citizens.
Letter of March 17, 2021, from the SmarterSafer Coalition, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus
March 17, 2021.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dina Titus,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Hon. Daniel Webster,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairman Titus, and
Ranking Member Webster:
The SmarterSafer Coalition (SmarterSafer) is a diverse coalition of
conservation and environmental groups, taxpayer-focused organizations,
insurance and reinsurance interests, and housing advocates. As Congress
turns its attention to comprehensive infrastructure legislation,
SmarterSafer writes to express our priorities on the matter. We
appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter into the record for
tomorrow's hearing in the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management entitled ``Building Smarter: The
Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation.''
There is an important nexus between infrastructure funding,
disaster preparedness, and ``Building Smarter.'' American
infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and stormwater systems, was
not designed to account for a changing climate and is ill-equipped to
withstand natural catastrophic risks. Roads and bridges are buckling
under higher temperatures, increased snowfall, wildfires, and
disastrous flooding. Stormwater management systems are overwhelmed by
natural catastrophes.
SmarterSafer members remain united in our support for fiscally
sound, environmentally responsible approaches to natural catastrophe
and infrastructure policy. As such, we encourage you and your
colleagues to address the nation's failing infrastructure in a manner
that balances environmental protection and better stewardship of
taxpayer dollars.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
The federal government currently spends more on post-disaster
cleanup and reconstruction than on pre-disaster mitigation. That
equation must change if we want to better protect our communities from
future natural catastrophes. Pre-disaster mitigation efforts protect
individuals and protect taxpayer dollars. Every $1 invested in
mitigation is estimated to save $6 on post-disaster spending. These
investments are particularly appropriate as many communities across the
country anticipate another year of devastating natural disasters, which
will increase their vulnerability at the same time they continue to
grapple with the COVID-19 crisis. SmarterSafer supports many elements
of H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, that were not enacted in the 116th
Congress including greater funding for pre-disaster flood mitigation
efforts and investments in natural infrastructure and deployment of
climate-resilient technologies, the importance of which are outlined
below.
Natural Infrastructure
Natural infrastructure--including healthy wetlands, functional
floodplains, forests, mangroves, and dunes--provides effective
solutions to guard against flooding and erosion. NOAA estimates that
U.S. coastal wetlands alone provide $23.2 billion in storm protection
each year. During Hurricane Sandy, for example, wetlands reduced
damages by more than 22 percent in more than half of the areas directly
affected by the storm. Increased funding and incentives to protect and
restore wetlands, watersheds, floodplains, and forests will strengthen
our communities and ecosystems. These natural features also provide
important wildlife habitat and will assist in creating outdoor
recreation opportunities and restoring tourism activity.
As we look to invest in climate-resilient and cost-effective
infrastructure, greater emphasis should be placed on natural
infrastructure that can absorb floodwaters and buffer and protect
communities from increased catastrophic risk. Nature-based approaches
should be used in combination with or as an alternative to gray
infrastructure where feasible.
Climate-Resilient Infrastructure
From devastating wildfires in the Western United States to flooding
in Houston to dam failures in Michigan, it's clear that our approach to
infrastructure is failing. Climate resilient infrastructure is
necessary to ensure that our families and communities are protected, as
well as our future investments. Federal funds--whether provided through
disaster assistance, Community Development Block Grants, or other
programs--should be directed to outcome-driven projects that strengthen
communities and reduce long-term risk. Federal infrastructure
investments should require stronger minimum design standards and
incorporate forecasts of future conditions for the lifespan of a
structure.
In addition, high-quality information and data is necessary to
inform strategic infrastructure investments and development decisions.
SmarterSafer supports increased scientific climate data sharing within
the government and between the public and private sectors. Bipartisan
legislation like the Built to Last Act, introduced in the 116th
Congress by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep.
Matt Cartwright (D-PA), would ensure that standards-developing
organizations that issue building codes have access to forward-looking
meteorological information, including data on wildfires and other
environmental trends.
Infrastructure in America's Floodplains
America's public infrastructure remains threatened by more frequent
and severe flooding. SmarterSafer members are very supportive of
President Biden's recent executive order restoring the federal flood
protection standard as an important step in protecting lives,
communities, properties, and taxpayer investments. SmarterSafer has
long championed House efforts to reinstate such a standard, including
through the Flood Resiliency and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2020,
introduced in the 116th Congress by Reps. David Price (D-NC) and Lee
Zeldin (R-NY), which would promote resiliency standards and taxpayer
protection with respect to infrastructure investments and flood risk.
While recent progress has been made, Congress should act to require
government-funded agencies involved in floodplain construction to
follow certain mitigation strategies to ensure that funds are used for
projects that can withstand disasters. Along those lines, SmarterSafer
also supports the Build for Future Disasters Act of 2020, legislation
introduced in the 116th Congress by Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Andy
Barr (R-KY) that would limit new construction inside federally
designated floodplains.
We have consistently supported and will continue to ask Congress to
consider preservation of green space and the elevation of structures
above base-flood levels. Finally, Congress should also consider the
racial inequities inherent in federal buyout programs that reflect and
perpetuate discriminatory practices and historic redlining. According
to numerous studies, buyouts disproportionately benefit white and
wealthy communities. Low-income and minority homeowners and communities
should be given priority and additional assistance to address and
balance the history of placing low-income and minority housing in areas
of higher risk.
Risk Transfer
The United States has an infrastructure funding gap of more than $2
trillion and the public sector alone cannot close it. Policymakers at
all levels of government must find ways to make every dollar go
further, and should consider enhanced public-private partnerships and
risk-transfer opportunities. The private sector, particularly the
insurance industry, has both the willingness and capacity to take on
additional risk associated with natural disasters. By leveraging
private financing and insurance and reinsurance availability,
policymakers can shift some financial burdens associated with climate
change from the government's balance sheet to willing private sector
participants.
We also encourage the House to consider targeted data-driven
measures that help Congress and the administration to identify
communities most in need of climate adaptation. Opportunities for
public-private partnerships and cost-sharing agreements should be given
serious consideration in an effort to bolster private sector
investments in climate resilient infrastructure.
The Role of Climate Research in Infrastructure Investment
We encourage you to consider our nation's research infrastructure
especially as it pertains to climate risk, ocean science, disaster
resilient engineering, and green infrastructure. COVID-19 further
demonstrates the need for more resilient, comprehensive, and efficient
research infrastructure, and is revealing unmet needs that are
hampering the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Congress should
consider new investments in research infrastructure that are important
to enhancing our nation's overall capabilities and competitiveness for
years to come, including American-organized or staffed not-for-profits
conducting vital research abroad, whether at sea, in biodiverse
habitats or other in situ locations important to furthering U.S.
research objectives. Additionally, we would encourage the Senate to
advance any forthcoming measure that aims to improve the sharing of
climate information.
Thoughtful infrastructure spending can and should simultaneously
provide economic growth, security for communities, and long-term
savings for taxpayers. We greatly appreciate your efforts and
consideration of the aforementioned suggestions to promote fiscally and
environmentally responsible infrastructure. Our coalition stands ready
to be a resource to you and your colleagues as legislation to forward
your infrastructure platform takes shape.
Respectfully,
SmarterSafer Coalition.
MEMBERS
Environmental Organizations
American Rivers
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
ConservAmerica
Defenders of Wildlife
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Surfrider Foundation
Consumer and Taxpayer Advocates
Coalition to Reduce Spending
National Taxpayers Union
R Street Institute
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Insurer and Reinsurer Interests
Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR)
The Chubb Corporation
Liberty Mutual Group
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC)
National Flood Association
Reinsurance Association of America
Swiss Re
USAA
Mitigation Interests
Natural Hazard Mitigation Association
Housing
Habitat for Humanity
National Housing Conference
National Leased Housing Association
ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS
Allianz of America
American Consumer Institute
American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA)
Center for Clean Air Policy
Friends of the Earth
Institute for Liberty
Zurich Insurance
Ms. Titus. Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chair Titus, for holding this
hearing today. I really appreciate it. I am thankful for the
witnesses, including Mr. Fowke, who is from Florida,
representing the National Association of Home Builders.
I am pleased to serve as ranking member of this
subcommittee, look forward to working closely with the chair on
issues critical to this subcommittee, including resiliency and
mitigation, which are very important to Florida.
So, in 2015, work was done in this committee, and we
learned that just 25 percent of the disasters accounted for
more than 92 percent of the disaster costs. While disaster
declarations have increased, these numbers show it is a small
number of large disasters that are driving the disaster costs.
Ultimately, the real solution to lowering disaster costs is
upfront investment in mitigation, which the chair talked about,
hardening of existing structures, which is sometimes very
economical, and yet, brings about much savings, not only the
savings, but also strength to the building.
We know mitigation saves lives, and reduces property
damages and disaster costs. Study after study shows, as the
chairman said, that for every $1 invested in mitigation, $4 to
$11 are saved.
We have seen the benefits of mitigation firsthand in
Florida. After a devastating 2004-2005 hurricane season,
Florida made specific policies and behavior changes to improve
on our disaster preparedness, including an overhaul, which
began quite a few years ago before that, to rewrite the
building code and implement it.
The cornerstone of these changes was mitigation through
resilient construction techniques and improved communication
and coordination between the State and local agencies. Florida
worked with industry leaders, homebuilders, the insurance
industry, and other stakeholders on a regional-based approach,
recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach does not really
work, but that leveraging incentive programs and other avenues
to help manage costs to consumers would work.
These investments in mitigation help to protect Florida
communities against hurricanes, flooding, and other hazards.
Whether it is hurricanes, floods, or wildfires, ensuring the
investments make sense and are cost-efficient is important to
ensuring effectiveness.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and
this is an important topic.
Thank you, Chair Titus, for holding this hearing. And I
yield back.
[Mr. Webster's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
Thank you, Chair Titus, for holding this hearing today. I want to
thank the witnesses, including Mr. Fowke from Florida representing the
National Association of Home Builders.
I am pleased to serve as the Ranking Member of this subcommittee,
and I hope to work closely with Chair Titus on issues critical to this
subcommittee, including resiliency and mitigation.
Disaster costs have increased significantly over the years. In
2015, through work done by this committee, we learned that just 25
percent of all disasters accounted for more than 92 percent of disaster
costs. While disaster declarations have increased, these numbers show
it is a small number of large disasters that are driving disaster
costs.
Ultimately, the real solution to lowering disaster costs is upfront
investment in mitigation. We know mitigation saves lives and reduces
property damage and disaster costs. Study after study demonstrates that
for every $1 invested in mitigation $4 to $11 are saved.
We have seen the benefits of mitigation firsthand in Florida. After
the devastating 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, Florida made specific
policy and behavior changes to improve our disaster preparedness. The
cornerstone of these changes was mitigation through resilient
construction techniques and improved communication and coordination
between state and local agencies.
Florida worked with the insurance industry, homebuilders, and other
stakeholders on a regional-based approach, recognizing that a one-size-
fits-all approach wouldn't work, but that leveraging incentive programs
and other avenues to help manage cost to consumers would. These
investments in mitigation help to protect Florida communities against
hurricanes, flooding, and other hazards.
In 2018, we enacted significant reforms, including the Disaster
Recovery Reform Act, that modernized FEMA's predisaster mitigation
program and provided an ongoing funding mechanism. But just as critical
as funding is the investment in proven mitigation measures appropriate
for the specific hazards in a given area. Whether it's hurricanes,
floods, or wildfires, ensuring the investments make sense and are cost-
beneficial is important to ensuring effectiveness.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
Before recognizing our witnesses, I would ask for Mr.
DeFazio, the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for his opening remarks.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
FEMA has been busy. It was quite a year--the pandemic,
above average tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires in
the United States. And I have got to thank the people at FEMA.
There were a lot of parts of the last administration that
became pretty dysfunctional. FEMA did not, and they were able
to deliver, and I appreciate all of the people who engaged in
that hard work.
The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
program, the BRIC program as we call it, is totally
oversubscribed. The demand is phenomenal. The savings are even
more extraordinary and phenomenal, in addition to ongoing
savings for the individuals, communities, businesses, in terms
of reduced insurance costs when they undertake these
activities.
In October, I led a bipartisan letter with Ranking Member
Graves, Chair Titus, and then-Ranking Member Katko to FEMA
Administrator Gaynor and OMB Director Vought, urging them to
set aside the full $3.7 billion for BRIC from the COVID
declarations. Unfortunately, they ignored that, and they set
aside only $500 million. I am hopeful that that can soon be
corrected by this administration.
And also, when we did the DRRA, the Disaster Recovery
Reform Act, I think that was the last Congress, the Congress
before--I can't remember anymore--we established a Post-
disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for FEMA for fire
management assistance. And I think there are activities that
need to be expanded and considered under that program.
For example, you probably can't move an entire community
out of the wildland-urban interface when it comes to fire, but
in the case of Blue River in my district, the fire was started
by a fire that fell from a pole with a severe and absolutely
unprecedented unusual wind out of the northeast, which doesn't
happen, but, hey, a lot of weird things happen these days.
So, considering to put the utilities underground, yeah, it
is an additional cost, but it is a one-time cost. You are not
going to have to put back the poles again or maybe put back the
poles and start another fire again, and then go back and put
the poles back up, et cetera.
So I think that we need to expand our view of what kinds of
activities will be acceptable. And I don't believe all of this
investment has to be borne directly by the Federal Government.
Going all the way back to the 113th Congress, I worked with
Representatives Reed, Pascrell, and Diaz-Balart to introduce
the Disaster Savings and Resilient Construction Act, which we
will reintroduce. It provides tax incentives to encourage
individuals and companies to basically prepare their homes and
businesses to whatever is the predicted natural disaster and
known risks in their areas, lessening costs of insurance claims
and certainly future disaster relief. And I plan on working
with our colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, and,
hopefully, they will advance the measure.
Just 3 years ago, the Republican-controlled Congress and
White House decided that DoD had to establish a resilience
standard for all its at-risk facilities, and everything
critical had to be a minimum of 2 feet above base flood-level
elevation. So, if it is good enough when the Federal Government
invests money in the Pentagon and its bases, I think it should
be for all federally funded infrastructure, and we will be
looking in our surface bill to build back resilience.
Then during our February markup, my friend from Louisiana,
Representative Garret Graves, offered an amendment to set aside
$500 million of the $50 billion we gave to FEMA disaster relief
to be used to establish a national flood standard. I am
certainly open to working with him in pursuing one. My
colleagues, Mr. Price of North Carolina and Mr. Zeldin of New
York, have recently introduced legislation with a similar goal,
which has been referred to the committee.
So we have got our work cut out for us to go forward in a
bipartisan way, to work and help give FEMA the tools and the
capability and the flexibility it needs to meet with new and
evolving risks. BRIC is just one example of how quickly we
could make these investments with the oversubscription of that
program.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Titus, and thank you to our witnesses for being
with us today. The issues we'll be discussing have proven results as
driving factors in reducing risk and future costs to the federal
taxpayer for disaster relief.
As Chair Titus noted in her opening remarks, the return on
investment is quite measurable and significant. And, this oversized
return on investment reminds me of the work done by the people at FEMA:
whether they are administering disaster relief and assistance, funding
mitigation projects, or undertaking efforts to bolster national
resilience one individual or community at a time, they play an outsized
role and punch well above their weight.
Representing a district recently impacted by catastrophic
wildfires, I've seen FEMA work with partners at the state and local
level, as well as with disaster survivors who have lost everything--
it's worth taking a moment to recognize FEMA's seemingly tireless
workforce.
In the last year alone, FEMA has been tapped to respond to the
pandemic with a record-setting number of concurrent Stafford Act
declarations; responded to above-average tornado, flood, hurricane, and
wildfire seasons while operating under unprecedented COVID protocols;
pushed tens of billions of dollars of assistance to state, tribal,
territorial, and local partners in disaster relief and unemployment
assistance; and now it is concurrently leading the effort to vaccinate
the nation and squelch the pandemic while also assisting its sister
federal agencies to provide more humane conditions for migrants seeking
refuge in the U.S.
For all the work FEMA employees have done and will continue to do
to help us recover from disasters--thank you.
Smart investments of Federal dollars in projects focused on
mitigating risk and bolstering resilience is just basic good
government, and will lessen the impacts of future disasters. When we
help mitigate risk using the programs and efforts of FEMA, we make
homes and the built environment of our communities more insurable--
shifting the burden from the Stafford Act as being the de facto insurer
of last resort for so much of the nation.
We know these programs are oversubscribed--just look at the volume
of interest in the BRIC program for this cycle. It's imperative that
BRIC is fully capitalized so it can fund an even greater number of
projects in the out years.
Last October, I was proud to lead a bipartisan letter with Ranking
Member Graves, Chair Titus, and then Ranking Member Katko to FEMA
Administrator Gaynor and OMB Director Vought urging them to set aside
the full $3.7 billion calculation for BRIC from the COVID declarations
granted pursuant to the Stafford Act. Instead, the previous
administration only set aside $500 million. This administration can
correct for that mistake, but not at the expense of ongoing vaccination
efforts.
In the DRRA, we successfully included the establishment of post-
disaster HMGP funding for FEMA's Fire Management Assistance Grants, so
that states that experienced wildfires of a magnitude warranting
federal help could also benefit from post-disaster mitigation
assistance. Additionally, we expanded eligible activities under the
HMGP program to be inclusive of additional hazards, such as earthquake
early warning technology.
Given the experiences of communities in Oregon, California, and
other states running into roadblocks using the HMGP funding for certain
activities in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), it appears that
additional activities must be taken into consideration to ensure that
the Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs address all hazards
equitably.
For example, an entire community may not be able to be relocated
out of the WUI, so it may be cost beneficial to underground utilities
to prevent future disasters from taking them down, or it may make sense
to rebuild a fire station in a lower-risk area of the WUI than to
simply not build one back at all.
And, I don't believe that all of this investment must be borne
directly by the Federal government. Going back to the 113th Congress, I
have joined with Representatives Reed, Pascrell and Diaz-Balart to
introduce the Disaster Savings and Resilient Construction Act, which is
about to be re-introduced.
It would provide tax incentives to encourage individuals and
companies to gird their homes and businesses from natural hazards and
known risks, lessening costs of insurance claims and future disaster
relief. I plan on working with our colleagues on the Ways and Means
Committee and urge them to advance the measure this congress.
Nearly three years ago, a Republican-controlled Congress and
President Trump agreed that the resilience of Department of Defense
(DOD) facilities was worthy of establishing a resilience standard
across the department. The FY19 John McCain Defense Authorization Act
explicitly requires that DOD facilities constructed in a special flood
hazard area must be built at a minimum of two feet above the base flood
elevation. If the facility is deemed to be critical infrastructure--
such as a power plant, hospital, school, or fire or police station--the
minimum requirement is three feet above base flood elevation.
If it's good enough for the billions of dollars we invest in the
DOD, then why not for other federally-funded infrastructure?
During our February markup, my friend from Louisiana,
Representative Graves, offered an amendment to set aside $500 million
of the $50 billion dollars we provided for FEMA disaster relief to be
used to establish a national flood standard, and I'm open to working
with him in pursuing one. Our colleagues--Mr. Price of North Carolina
and Mr. Zeldin of New York--have recently introduced legislation with a
similar goal, which has been referred to the Committee.
We have our work cut out for us. The T&I Committee has always taken
on challenging tasks and tried to find a bipartisan path forward. I'd
expect the same here. We'd all like to see our communities stronger and
safer--more resilient from known risks.
The crush of applicants for BRIC is proof that there's no lack of
shovel-ready projects that can get underway, put engineers and trades
to work, and lessen the impacts of future disasters.
I look forward to working with Chair Titus as we move forward, and
in finding areas of agreement with our colleagues across the aisle.
Thank you.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves is not with us to make a statement, so we would
now like to welcome the witnesses on our panel:
Mr. Roy Wright, who is president and CEO of Insurance
Institute for Business and Home Safety; Ms. Velma Smith, senior
government relations officer of the flood-prepared communities
initiative for The Pew Charitable Trusts; Mr. Ben Harper, head
of corporate sustainability, Zurich North America; Mr. John
Fowke. Would you like to say something about Mr. Fowke, Mr.
Webster? Didn't you say he was from Florida?
Mr. Webster. Well, he is national chairman of the National
Association of Home Builders, and he is also from Florida, a
builder over in the Tampa area, Tampa Bay area.
Ms. Titus. All right. We are glad to have him.
And Mr. Russell Strickland, I believe Ms. Norton would like
to introduce him.
Ms. Norton. Yes, Madam Chair. I would be pleased to
introduce today as a witness, Mr. Russell J. Strickland from my
neighboring State of Maryland. Mr. Strickland is an experienced
emergency management professional who has more than 40 years of
experience in the field of emergency services and first
responder activities at the State and local levels of
government, academia, and the private sector.
This includes expertise in fire and rescue services,
emergency medical services, fire inspection and investigation,
communications, and emergency management leadership.
Mr. Strickland currently serves as the executive director
of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency. In his current
role, Mr. Strickland leads the Agency that has primary
responsibility and authority for disaster risk reduction and
consequent management for the State of Maryland. This includes
service as a direct advisor to the Governor during disasters
and coordinating support for local government as requested.
With his extensive background, I am pleased that we have
Mr. Strickland here to testify before us this afternoon. And I
thank you, Mr. Strickland, and you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
We are delighted to have all of our witnesses. They
certainly bring a level of professionalism and expertise to the
panel, and we look forward to hearing from them.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. Since your written testimony has been
made a part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
We will now proceed with the witnesses and begin with Mr.
Strickland.
TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL J. STRICKLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MARYLAND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; ROY E. WRIGHT, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS AND
HOME SAFETY; VELMA SMITH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS OFFICER,
FLOOD-PREPARED COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE, THE PEW CHARITABLE
TRUSTS; BEN HARPER, HEAD OF CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, ZURICH
NORTH AMERICA; AND JOHN C. FOWKE, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
Mr. Strickland. Thank you for the kind introduction and for
holding this hearing, and allowing me to testify on behalf of
the National Emergency Management Association.
In the State of Maryland, we rely on investments in
mitigation, and a whole-community approach to addressing our
vulnerabilities. These investments ensure that when a disaster
strikes, the communities affected will be able to effectively
respond and build back stronger.
However, our journey to be a more resilient State and
Nation faces some challenges that, with your permission, I
would like to address.
First, your foresight in creating the Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities program, BRIC, has allowed
States to implement projects that will strengthen our
collective resilience for the long term. However, State and
local needs currently far exceed available funding. As such, we
strongly encourage Congress to work with FEMA and OMB to allow
the full 6-percent set-aside of eligible disaster spending
every year for this program. BRIC is transformative in its
capacity to support large infrastructure projects, particularly
those related to stabilizing community lifelines, and that is
why it is so important.
Further, building resilience for Maryland's energy and
communications lifelines is central to supporting our
communities as they try to return to normal operations after a
disaster. Given that in many States, the private sector owns
and operates most critical infrastructure, leveraging BRIC
funding with public-private partnerships will strengthen our
resilience. The Federal Government remains an active partner in
supporting our mitigation projects and strengthening our
resilience. Earlier this year, Maryland submitted an
application to the BRIC program, and we are looking forward to
getting started.
Second, FEMA's all-or-nothing approach to building code
standards in this year's BRIC application scoring may unfairly
place communities that are still working through that adoption
process at a disadvantage, perpetuating a cycle that puts
people and buildings at risk.
In my written statement, I go into detail about the
benefits provided by using building codes that are appropriate
to local hazards to avoid disaster losses and increase
resilience. While these benefits are a worthwhile investment,
States often must conduct a lengthy legislative process to
adopt new building codes. FEMA should remain flexible in
supporting States and locals as they work to adopt the building
codes appropriate to their risk profiles.
Another challenge in our efforts to build back stronger is
the complexity of many FEMA grant programs and the extensive
requirements that the jurisdiction must satisfy to access FEMA
funding. For example, one difficulty is assisting the many
locals who do not have sufficient staffing and capacity to
develop successful grant applications. This is particularly
challenging for our low- and moderate-income communities that
face repetitive hazard risk. We should work together to
simplify the requirements or provide increased funding to hire
staff to assist local jurisdictions in writing competitive
grants.
With disasters increasing in size and frequency, our
recovery and resilience efforts must be in line with building
back stronger, rather than the previous capabilities and
capacity. As you know, the State of Maryland is threatened by a
host of hazards in a coastline vulnerable to sea level rise and
erosion. In addition to our work with Federal partners,
Maryland is working to establish cross-sector partnerships that
reduce risk to our people, property, and critical
infrastructure. Effective coordination is critical, and
Maryland has seen successful partnerships with FEMA through
hazard mitigation assistance, and our hosting of a FEMA
integration team which places FEMA personnel in a State
emergency operation center.
None of these challenges, however, cannot be overcome. A
strong working relationship with this committee has brought us
this far, and I am sure will bring more opportunities for
success in the future.
On behalf of the State emergency managers, thank you,
again, for holding this hearing and drawing attention to the
needs of the emergency management community. Emergency
management is a team sport, and we will surely be more
successful in saving lives and property when we work together.
Thank you very much.
[Mr. Strickland's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell J. Strickland, Executive Director,
Maryland Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the National
Emergency Management Association
Thank you, Chairman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, and
distinguished members of the Committee for allowing me to testify
today.
I am proud to testify today representing the National Emergency
Management Association (NEMA). NEMA represents the state emergency
management directors of all 50 states, territories, and the District of
Columbia. As Executive Director of the Maryland Emergency Management
Agency and on behalf of my colleagues in state emergency management, we
thank you for holding this discussion on the importance of investing in
mitigation and resilience.
Understanding the Landscape of Mitigation and Resilience
As disasters become more frequent and larger in scale, scope, and
complexity, we know we will never be able to respond our way out of the
vulnerabilities our communities face. Instead we must invest in
mitigation projects that work with our communities to build resilience
where it is needed most. These investments are key to ensuring that
when a disaster occurs the communit(ies) affected will be able to
withstand its impacts and rapidly recover.
Communities need to be supported and provided resources to pursue a
pathway to increase their resilience. This includes support for their
mitigation projects from inception to implementation. We must also
place comprehensive, transformational mitigation at the forefront of
our national security strategy to reduce risk. We also have to be
flexible with each community and recognize that each has its own set of
unique risks and vulnerabilities. Then, we can identify obstacles and
provide solutions to overcome them and continue to build upon our
successes.
I am known among my colleagues for saying, ``mitigation is the
center of the universe,'' because these projects are imperative as we
seek to avert the worst possible impacts of disasters and prepare our
communities for when the next disaster strikes. As a coastal state
Maryland is prone to a host of water-related hazards, including
flooding, severe storms, and hurricanes, as well as tornadoes,
earthquakes, and excessive heat. This is in addition to the risks faced
across our nation by threats such as pandemics. Mitigation activities
can be as individual as washing hands and wearing a mask to combat
COVID-19 or purchasing flood insurance when living in a flood zone or
as large as conducting coastal restoration to mitigate the impacts of
climate change in the Chesapeake Bay.
Resilience must be made actionable to be effective. The NEMA
Resilience Committee is focused on considering methods to ensure that
resilience is incorporated into all stages of emergency management,
from updating preparedness and mitigation plans to incorporating
resiliency principles into exercises and rebuilding stronger post-
disaster.
Maryland and other states across the nation are working to
inculcate a culture of preparedness and promote resilience through
increased public awareness of risk, enhancements to critical
infrastructure, and mitigation projects that incorporate nature-based
solutions and public-private partnerships.
The Maryland Experience
Success
As we collectively move beyond a traditional mitigation mindset to
one that incorporates large infrastructure projects and partnerships we
must go beyond tradition to think broadly about resilience. Building
dynamic partnerships across the whole community to include non-profits
and the private sector will expand our capacity to reduce risk across
the landscape. Maryland, under the leadership of Governor Larry Hogan,
is making great strides in establishing partnerships across sectors and
across nations in order to bring innovative solutions to the challenges
we are facing. During his 2019-2020 chairmanship of the National
Governors Association, Governor Hogan made strengthening the resilience
of America's critical infrastructure a top focus for states.
Challenges
Among the most significant challenges to increasing mitigation and
resilience projects is the need for funding that is flexible and
accessible to vulnerable low- and moderate-income communities. Many
communities that are at elevated levels of hazard risk are those with
limited resources to invest in disaster risk reduction.
Relatedly, grant applications involve all levels of government,
ranging from local to state to federal. Many grants have cumbersome
proposal and application requirements. This further exacerbates the
challenges for jurisdictions without sufficient staff to shepherd an
application to its fruition. Continuing to streamline processes at the
federal level where possible will increase engagement from under
resourced jurisdictions, and their strengthened resilience will enhance
our local, state, and national resilience.
BRIC Program and Set-Aside
Section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018
(P.L. 115-254) authorizes the National Public Infrastructure Pre-
Disaster Mitigation fund, which has been implemented as the Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. The program
provides opportunities for increased whole community collaboration to
pursue transformative mitigation projects. The first application period
for this new program closed at the end of January 2021.
Maryland submitted a proposal to remainage the Middle Branch of
Baltimore City. The area is home to the Nation's first Urban Wildlife
Refuge but plagued by flooding and environmental degradation. The BRIC
proposal will be the catalyst to address flooding and climate change
risk and support a vulnerable community with valuable environmental
resources. Additionally, this area supports critical infrastructure and
facilities, such as Harbor Hospital and a main thoroughfare to support
activity for the Port of Baltimore. Reducing the flooding risk will
continue to ensure the protection of these vital community services.
BRIC provides opportunities to support capacity and capability
building activities for communities to identify and develop resilience
projects. However, there are opportunities for greater flexibility
within this program in order to support the development of complex,
innovative projects and also prioritize resources for vulnerable
communities. The current State set-aside of $600,000 for each State,
Territory, and District of Columbia is far too limited to support the
development of the types of resilience projects needed to combat the
risks on the horizon.
BRIC is funded by a set-aside of up to six percent of estimated
disaster grant expenditures. For the initial offering, FEMA made $500
million available and the total applicant pool totaled $3.6 billion
dollars. This clearly demonstrated the need and desire among state,
local, tribal, and territorial governments to invest in mitigation if
the opportunity is available. As such, we strongly urge Congress to
work with FEMA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure
that the full six percent set-aside is available each year.
Supporting the Implementation of Consensus-Based Building Codes
Strong building codes save lives and protect property. A commonly
cited statistic (and appropriately so) from a series of ongoing
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) studies is that
mitigation investments return $6 for every $1 invested, but even more
impressively, the study's authors found that there is a national
benefit of $11 in return for every $1 invested in designing buildings
to model building codes.
We have seen this play out nationwide where newer building codes
have been implemented. Notably, Alaska underwent a 7.0 earthquake in
late 2018 that was very geographically similar to the famed 1964
earthquake which killed more than 100 people. In 2018, however, with
the adoption of model building codes there were no reported deaths or
serious injuries.
Last year FEMA released Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study
which concluded that the U.S. will avoid $132 billion in losses from
hazard events by 2040 because of buildings built to international
standards. While not all codes are appropriate in all instances,
ensuring building codes meet the needs of a locality and its hazard
profile has a demonstrated impact on community resilience in the event
of a disaster.
This year a piece of the scoring rubric for BRIC worth 20 percent
of the total score is whether the applicant has a mandatory building
code adoption requirement (2015 or 2018 versions of the International
Building Code and International Residential Code). These points are
awarded in an all-or-nothing fashion, potentially disadvantaging those
applicants who do not have the capability to change building code
standards within their states unilaterally and must undergo a lengthy
stakeholder and legislative process to do so. FEMA has stated that it
wishes to support the adoption of appropriate building codes through
BRIC but if applicants are disadvantaged because of their older
building codes and unable to obtain funding for those projects it
perpetuates a cycle that leaves buildings and people less safe.
Especially in the initial years of the BRIC process, we encourage FEMA
to be understanding of the different status of codes nationwide and
work collaboratively and not punitively to support the states as they
work to raise their building code standards.
Integrating Community Lifelines Into Mitigation and Resilience Efforts
BRIC is an opportunity to create transformative, community-based
projects that work with the private sector, homeowners, locals, and
other stakeholders that incentivizes large infrastructure projects for
community lifelines. Governor Hogan recently testified before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on the importance of
investing in resilient transportation and infrastructure projects which
bolster our collective resilience in the face of disasters and cyber
threats \1\. As a designated community lifeline, resilient
infrastructure and transportation networks will enable areas affected
by disaster to more rapidly return to normal function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on
``Building Back Better: Investing in Transportation while Addressing
Climate Change, Improving Equity, and Fostering Economic Growth and
Innovation.'' February 24, 2021. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/hearings?ID=A076F488-6A1E-41DB-9279-7C943023D8D9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring community lifelines, particularly energy and
communication, are resilient against hazard impacts is a priority for
Maryland and many other states to ensure the safety and security of our
residents post-disaster. Community lifelines are often owned and
operated by the private sector, further underscoring the need to
embrace partnerships and educate those outside of traditional emergency
management on the role everyone can play in mitigation and resilience.
Building Back Stronger
An immediate post-disaster priority is beginning the long process
to rebuild a community. Increased resilience helps us to do that more
quickly, as those in the community are more prepared and ready for the
impacts. However, with the scale of disasters growing we must be
prepared to build back stronger in anticipation of the future, rather
than building back to previous capacity and capability which was
insufficient.
As always when working with multiple organizations and levels of
government, coordination can always be improved. Maryland has seen
significant benefits in this space from the placement of a FEMA
Integration Team (FIT) within the Hazard Mitigation and Public
Assistance programs. These FEMA personnel have served to expedite
processes and be a dedicated source to ensuring resources are made
available to disaster survivors as soon as possible.
MEMA continues to see successes in FEMA's Public Assistance 406
Mitigation programs and Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. In 2018,
Frederick County, MD sustained intense damages due to flooding. Through
the Public Assistance 406 Mitigation program we were able to go above
an in-kind replacement to implement a larger scale resilience project
that will reduce future losses to residential and commercial properties
within the community. Through the Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs
we are continuing to build upon these efforts by pursuing funding to
increase the level of protection of the surrounding infrastructure.
A significant challenge when it comes to building back stronger is
the length of time between when a disaster declaration is approved and
when the funding associated with that declaration is available in the
impacted areas. Streamlining federal requirements and processes while
still ensuring judicious stewardship of taxpayer dollars is critical to
helping communities when they need it most.
On August 4, 2020, Tropical Storm Isaias made landfall in Maryland
resulting in widespread flooding and several tornadoes touching down in
our rural communities. These impacts were additionally challenging as
we were in the midst of COVID-19 response efforts. Due to COVID-19
restrictions on travel, the Joint Preliminary Damage Assessment was
done remotely for the vast majority of the event. This then places a
documentation burden on state and local personnel that is not typically
seen at this phase of the process, making meeting the 30-day deadline
for a declaration request impossible. Changes were also made to the PDA
guide during the pandemic that were conflicting and prohibitive when
considering how to mitigate damaged infrastructure during the Public
Assistance project phase.
Maryland's request for federal assistance through a Presidential
Major Disaster Declaration was initially denied and was finally awarded
through the appeals process six months later on February 4, 2021. This
six-month delay caused us to miss opportunities to build upon the
State's resilience and implement mitigation projects. Citizens do not
have the ability to wait months to receive assistance and return to
their homes and businesses. Our local governments are not able to wait
months to make repairs and improvements to critical infrastructure. We
urge Congress to work with FEMA in order to continue to streamline
federal assistance programs in order to expedite programs and
capitalize on mitigation opportunities.
Conclusion
On behalf of the state emergency managers, thank you again for
holding this hearing and drawing attention to the needs of the
emergency management community. In Maryland, we are acutely aware of
the need to build upon the momentum from the implementation of the BRIC
program to further improve mitigation and resilience efforts to ensure
we effectively support our communities in their time of need. As you
consider the topics of this hearing, please remember that investing in
mitigation and resilience makes real differences in the lives of those
affected by disasters and allows us to build back smarter to lessen the
impacts of future events.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Strickland.
Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. Good afternoon, Chair Titus, Ranking Member
Webster, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with you all today.
If 2020 has taught us anything, it is that the home is of
paramount importance, and for too many, vulnerable to the
forces of Mother Nature.
The dangers of COVID-19 led Americans to seek refuge in
their homes, juggling remote work, childcare, and other
necessities of life under a single roof. The year 2020 showed
us that housing is infrastructure. Yeah, housing is
infrastructure.
And yet, 2020 should also be remembered as the year that
climate change barged through the front door of American
families. The year 2020 delivered the most active Atlantic
hurricane season on record, the most named storms in history,
the outlandish number of acres that were burned by wildfire,
and the Midwest derecho that was the costliest thunderstorm in
our Nation's history. NOAA reported another 2020 record. There
were 22 weather and climate disasters that broke through the $1
billion cost mark.
A look at 2020 in a broader context: while natural perils
last year were particularly bad, it was not an anomaly. There
is a pattern of major disasters that just won't let up. That is
a factoid. So what do we do about it? We must adapt, and adapt
now. In an era where severe weather continues to disrupt lives,
displace families, and drive financial loss, our team at the
Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety developed the
science and building practices so that the places where people
live, learn, work, worship, and gather, are safe, stable, and
strong.
The risk is on an escalating path. Our partners, the
Reinsurance Association of America, have been leveraging
private sector analytics and public data to visualize the
interplay between natural hazards, housing stock, and
socioeconomic vulnerabilities.
I want you to look at the specifics in my written
testimony, but here is the central point: We must leverage
public-private partnerships if we are going to focus limited
resources on the places of greatest impact.
As IBHS studies wind, rain, hail, and wildfire, we see
specific and actionable pathways that will bend down these risk
curves. But we cannot allow resilience to be a luxury item.
Home and community resilience cannot be the exclusive option of
the top two quartiles of income in this country.
So, some congressional pathways for strengthening the
resilience of American homes: First, encourage strong statewide
building codes. As you contemplate legislation, target those
investments at places where we can spur new and sustained
commitments by States to using modernized codes. We need the
total investment to grow, not just switch out local dollars and
replace them with Federal grants.
For those Americans who have the means to take actions, we
need to nudge them to do so with resiliency tax credits, like
the bipartisan bill that Chairman DeFazio mentioned.
And where the pathway to home resilience is not readily
affordable, we need to use national and State policy mechanisms
to achieve our goal. The BRIC program could be better
calibrated to fund residential resilience projects.
What would it look like if we had created community
disaster resilience zones, a derivation of the Build America
Bonds that drove private sector funding to address natural
disaster risks of exposed communities, particularly focusing on
underserved socioeconomic areas.
Next, we need to prioritize resilient infrastructure. The
cascading disaster in Texas last month put a clear spotlight on
something we have known, but have long ignored. The resilience
of homes is intrinsically connected to the resilience of
community infrastructure, especially water and energy.
As Congress works with the Biden administration to develop
an ambitious infrastructure bill, we urge this subcommittee to
champion resilience and climate change adaptation as central
objectives of that legislation. Do not miss the opportunity to
reduce the future costs of disaster relief by making resilience
to severe weather and changing climate a central component of
the infrastructure. We need to extend this to public buildings.
You all know this quite well with category E under the Stafford
Act. Stop incentivizing communities to skip insurance, because
they know FEMA will simply pay the bill.
In closing, Americans are not powerless against severe
weather. It is possible to reduce the damage inflicted today
and into the future. Meeting this pressing need will require an
all-of-the-above approach.
I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Wright's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roy E. Wright, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today about the importance of residential resilience as we
think about strengthening families, communities, and adapting to the
adverse effects of future climate conditions. My name is Roy Wright,
and I am President & CEO of the Insurance Institute for Business & Home
Safety (IBHS). IBHS is a 501(c)(3) organization, enabled by the
property insurance industry's investment, to fund building safety
research that leads to real-world solutions for home and business
owners, helping to create more resilient communities.
Severe weather disrupts lives, displaces families, and drives
financial loss. IBHS delivers top-tier science and translates it into
action so we can prevent avoidable suffering, strengthen our homes and
businesses, inform the insurance industry, and support thriving
communities. The perils we study at IBHS are part of the natural world
in which we live, but social and economic disasters occur when these
perils meet human populations that live or work in harm's way. In order
to break the cycle of destruction, it is essential to address all
aspects of the building performance chain: where you build, how you
design and construct, and how well you maintain and repair. As a
building science institute, IBHS focuses on the ways that weather
behaves, what makes homes and businesses vulnerable, and how our
buildings can be more resilient. We exist to help ensure that the
places where people live, learn, work, worship, and gather are safe,
stable, and as strong as the best science can equip them to be.
Our research teaches that improving residential resilience can
require an assortment of actions, incentives, and stakeholders. To make
a home more resilient to wildfire, for example, takes individual,
collective, and governmental action. The homeowner must take care of
basic yard maintenance, create a zone of defensible space around the
house, use non-combustible building materials, and take steps to
prevent embers from entering the home. Even those property-specific
actions may not be sufficient, as the other houses, structures, and
vegetation in the surrounding area must also be maintained
appropriately. Community and government action, like creating fuel
breaks, maintaining common spaces, and managing wildland fuel sources
are also important. To protect a single home, an ``all of the above''
approach is necessary.
The same is true at the national level. Resilience to the natural
perils we face, particularly when one considers the effects climate
change has on these perils, requires an assortment of initiatives
designed to strengthen American homes. These programs should seek to
leverage public and private financing, data, and analytics to maximize
our national competencies in the resilience space, regardless of where
those competencies sit. Today, I will make the case for investments in
residential resilience; provide a set of pathways that Congress can
take to help make resilience more available for all Americans,
regardless of their financial means; and propose several ways that
resilience can be incorporated into upcoming infrastructure bills.
Strengthening our resilience to natural perils and climate change is
among the most pressing challenges we face as a nation, but solutions
are within our reach.
The Case for Residential Resilience
1. A Changing Climate Increases Natural Perils
If 2020 taught us anything, it is that the home is of paramount
importance--and for too many, vulnerable to the forces of Mother
Nature. The dangers of COVID-19 led Americans from all fifty states to
seek refuge in their homes, juggling remote work, child-rearing, and
all the other necessities of life under a single roof. And yet, 2020
should also be remembered as a year of natural fury--the year that
climate change affected families across the country. Last year
delivered the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, with the
most named storms in history, the worst wildfire season ever, with a
record-shattering 18 infernos of 100,000 acres or more across the West,
and a Midwest derecho that was the most costly thunder storm in
national history. According to reporting from the NOAA's National
Centers for Environmental Information, 2020 set a record of 22 billion-
dollar weather and climate disasters in the United States. However, we
must look at 2020 in the broader context: while natural perils last
year were particularly bad, they were not anomalous. 2020 was the sixth
consecutive year in which ten or more billion-dollar weather and
climate disaster events have occurred in the United States. Considering
this trend, we must adapt by making our families, businesses, and
communities more resilient to a changing climate and associated severe
weather.
The Reinsurance Association of America (RAA) has developed a tool
that leverages publicly available data to visualize the interplay
between natural hazards, housing stock, and socio-economic
vulnerabilities. Using the data pulled from, among other sources, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Risk Index and the U.S.
Census Bureau, the RAA tool provides us with the ability to pinpoint--
at the census tract, county, or Congressional district level--where
natural perils, older housing stock, and disadvantaged populations
converge to create zones of heightened vulnerability and risk. Exhibit
A to this testimony demonstrates how this tool can be used by analyzing
data for two Congressional Districts: Nevada-01 and Florida-11.
In the Chairwoman's district, Nevada's 1st District, the tool
demonstrates that the most significant natural peril is earthquake,
with the earthquake-related Expected Annual Loss scores ranging from
relatively moderate to very high. Clark County has a low community
resilience score assigned by FEMA, meaning that the county has minimal
ability to prepare for anticipated natural hazards, adapt to changing
conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. At a
census tract level, FEMA's social vulnerability scores for the
Chairwoman's district range considerably, but many are in the top two
quartiles as compared to the rest of the nation. This means that many
of the people in Nevada-01 are, using FEMA's definition in its National
Risk Index Primer (December 2020), susceptible ``to the adverse impacts
of natural hazards, including disproportionate death, injury, loss, or
disruption of livelihood'' when considering ``the social, economic,
demographic, and housing characteristics of a community that influence
its ability to prepare for, respond to, cope with, recover from, and
adapt to environmental hazards.'' Moreover, many of the housing units
in the district were built prior to 2000 and over half were built prior
to 1990, demonstrating an aging housing stock that was not built to
modern building codes. Put together, Nevada's 1st District is a good
candidate for expanded federal mitigation aid, as it has unmet needs, a
vulnerable population, an aging housing stock, and areas of heightened
risk of earthquake loss.
In the Ranking Member's district--Florida's 11th District--the tool
demonstrates that hurricane, high wind, and wildfire are the natural
perils most contributing to Expected Annual Loss. Hurricane, the most
significant peril in the district, could cause the most damage to
people and property in the eastern part of the district--particularly
in Lake County. In addition, the FEMA scores for community resilience
are in or near the bottom quartile of the nation in each of the
counties in the district, meaning that the counties lack the resources
to respond and recover from a natural disaster. Further, the FEMA
social vulnerability data suggests that much of the population in this
district has relatively high vulnerability as compared to the rest of
the country. The age of the housing stock in Florida-11 is mixed, with
more than fifty percent of housing units in the district built before
2000. This district, too, would benefit from increased investments in
residential and community resilience.
These areas highlight where resilience investments are most needed.
The work that RAA has done demonstrates the analytic role that the
private sector--and particularly the insurance industry--can play to
help policymakers at all levels of government develop resilience-
strengthening policies that will respond to the deepest needs.
2. Solve with Research
The core perils studied at the IBHS Research Center are wind, wind-
driven rain, hail, and wildfire, all relevant to today's hearing
because they could become more frequent and destructive with a changing
climate. The design of our Research Center--with 105 fans capable of
generating wind speeds approximating the gusts of a Category 3
Hurricane--provides unique capabilities to replicate real world weather
conditions that arise during high wind and convective storms. We have
developed a unique capability to replicate the density, hardness, and
kinetic energy of natural hailstones to assess the durability and
damageability of asphalt shingles and other products. We also have made
significant, long-term investments wildfire research. Wildfire is one
of the most important perils we study at the IBHS Research Center. This
is the only place beside real-world wildfire events that can expose
full-size buildings and building components to realistic thermal
exposure of flames and embers. Creating a realistic scenario to study
building vulnerabilities to wildfire has made IBHS the epicenter of
wildfire research over the past decade and has attracted other research
organizations to collaborate with IBHS. In addition to work at our
facility, our scientists and partners have conducted post-disaster
investigations to examine the factors that contributed to the losses
from these destructive fires. IBHS' best-in-class science fills
knowledge gaps to achieve significant social and economic benefits
across all regions and demographics of America.
In choosing specific research projects, we are driven by our
mission of translating our research into action. That means that we
choose science that can shape building codes and standards, evolve our
FORTIFIED program of beyond code resilience standards, influence
building professionals and products, improve consumer choices, and
advance sound public policy solutions. At a fundamental level,
consumers deserve to have confidence that the time and financial
investments they make in resilience will live up to their reasonable
expectations. Our research demonstrates that home and business
resilience is available at a range of price points, and that poor
choices or inaction can result in damage or destruction when severe
weather strikes.
3. Build and Retrofit for a Resilient Today and Tomorrow
Due to the research conducted at IBHS, actions to strengthen the
resilience of residential structures are not just knowable but known.
For instance, when we think about the perils of wind and wind-driven
rain, we start with the roof. When roofs fail, they can kick-start a
cascade of failures such as water infiltration, projectile damage, and
destruction of rooftop equipment, resulting in as much as 70-90 percent
of insured residential losses from some disasters and deeply disrupting
those who relied on their roofs for protection. It is critical to
educate home and business owners to pay more attention to their roof
and to understand how to extend its life and reduce the likelihood of
storm-related damage. IBHS research shows one easy way to achieve this
is by applying tape over the roof deck's joints before the underlayment
is applied (this is called a ``sealed roof deck''). The process costs
only several hundred dollars for a typical roofing installation but can
save tens of thousands of dollars in the event the roof cover is blown
off during a high or prolonged wind event. Small investments today can
prevent large losses in the future--but we must find ways to get people
to pay attention and act.
Strengthening resilience to wildfire poses a significant challenge.
Our field observations following the worst 2017/2018 California fires
indicate that understanding survivability is complex, with many
different factors combining to determine whether a structure was
destroyed, damaged, or relatively unscathed. Notwithstanding these
complexities, research has shown there are steps that give a home a
much better chance of surviving an encounter with wildfire. As with
wind perils, homeowners should start with their roof, using only Class
A roofing materials that provide the most fire resistance. Homeowners
should also pay close attention to the five foot ``ignition zone''
around their home, maintaining a buffer zone free of vegetation, yard
debris, structures like sheds, and other combustible materials. Similar
maintenance should be maintained under existing decks, which should be
constructed with non-combustible materials if possible. Additionally,
using \1/8\ inch or finer metal screens in openings to attics, vents,
gables, and crawlspaces can prevent flying embers from entering the
home. Guidance on these actions can be found in IBHS's ``Suburban
Wildfire Adaptation Roadmap,'' which fills a critical gap in wildfire
science by identifying effective and actionable ways to drive down the
growing losses that occur when wildfire spreads beyond the wildland-
urban interface (WUI) into dense suburban communities, as well as our
WILDFIRE READY guide, both of which were released last year.
While some of the actions that can mitigate the risk of wildfire
are low-cost or are based primarily on sweat equity, other retrofit
options--such as replacing siding and windows with non-combustible
alternatives--can be costly and, for some, unaffordable. Addressing the
cost barrier for resilience is one place where government programs can
help make resilience to natural perils a reality for more families and
communities.
Congressional Pathways for Strengthening the Resilience of American
Homes
Federal legislation is an essential part of the ``all of the
above'' approach needed to strengthen residential resilience. Through
targeted policies, programs, and funding, Congress can encourage
responsible decision-making at the state, local, Tribal and territorial
(SLTT) level, incentivize resilience investments by homeowners,
financially support resilience for disadvantaged populations, and
improve existing federal pipelines for resilience funding.
Collectively, these actions can help narrow the resilience gap in the
United States and better prepare families and communities for severe
weather and a changing climate.
1. Encourage Strong, Statewide Building Codes
Strong, and strong enforced, building codes are an important tool
to improve resilience. Building codes are sets of regulations,
standards, and guidelines adopted by states and local communities to
promote the construction of safe and durable structures. Historically,
codes focus on life safety, but through proper application, they also
can reduce the disruption natural hazards have on our lives. FEMA's
2020 ``Building Codes Save'' study found that existing codes will
result in $132 billion in losses avoided between 2000 and 2040. If all
new buildings in the United States were built to modern editions of
model building codes, the losses avoided would be more than $600
billion. However, adoption and enforcement of building codes are not
uniform across the country, or even within some of our most hazard-
prone states. In fact, the FEMA study reported that 30 percent of new
construction occurs in communities with either no codes at all or codes
that are more than twenty years outdated. This must change, and federal
action can encourage the adoption and enforcement of strong, state-wide
building codes based on the most current model codes.
A mitigation provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2018 included new Public Assistance cost-share incentives for states to
invest in resilience, including an increased federal share (up to 10
percent more) for Stafford Act funding to states and territories that
undertake eligible mitigation actions like adopting current building
codes. Congress can amend the Stafford Act to give FEMA the flexibility
to use a portion of the cost-share for all disaster relief and
mitigation programs as a tool to encourage strong building codes and
other pro-resilience actions by SLTTs.
Congress can amend the Stafford Act to direct FEMA's
Building Resilient Infrastructures and Communities (BRIC) program and
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to create set-asides to
incentivize new state-level building code enactment, modernization, and
enforcement. These funds should target the creation and expansion of
building code activities, not simply fund what is ongoing in given
jurisdiction.
2. Promote Resilient Retrofits with Financial Incentivizes
While building codes are a fundamental tool for shaping the
resilience of tomorrow's homes, they do not strengthen resilience where
Americans live today. Only retrofits can improve the resilience of
existing houses.
Social science suggests that effectively evaluating risk--
particularly high impact, low likelihood risk like natural disasters--
is challenging. When it comes to natural perils, people usually feel
more protected than they are. For those with the financial means to
invest in resilient retrofits, government incentives can provide the
additional nudge they need to act. The tax code is a place where
Congress can create financial incentives that encourage homeowners to
invest in their own resilience.
Congress can revisit resilient tax credit bills from the
last Congress such as H.R. 3462 (the ``SHELTER Act'') or H.R. 7979 (the
``Disaster Savings and Resilient Construction Act of 2020''), which
would have provided tax credits for eligible expenses paid by
individuals and businesses for purchases that help reduce potential
damage from hurricanes, flooding, and other forms of natural disaster.
Tax credits for resilience investments are most effective when they are
available for sunny day resilience actions as well as those taken in
the post-disaster context.
Congress can end the federal taxation of the benefits
individuals and businesses receive from state-based catastrophe-loss
mitigation programs, such as the California Bolt + Brace program for
strengthening buildings located in earthquake prone areas, and the
Strengthen Alabama Homes program, which provides grants funds to
upgrade to a FORTIFIED Roof. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 5494--the
``Catastrophe-Loss-Mitigation Incentive and Tax Parity Act of 2019''--
would have eliminated tax lability for amounts received as part of
certain state-funded grant programs. Passage of such legislation would
allow homeowners to take maximum advantage of state resilience grants.
3. Make Resilience Available for All
Residential resilience should not be a luxury only available for
those with financial means. According to sociological research,
disabled, elderly, low income, and other disadvantaged people are less
likely to prepare for disasters, evacuate safely, avoid physical or
psychological trauma, or recover quickly and fully. Low-income
residents account for a meaningful percentage of the population in many
coastal communities and other areas that face climate risk, often in
the most vulnerable housing. This reality places an even higher
priority on resilience programs that prevent avoidable damage to the
places these populations live.
Providing a higher degree of financial support for the residential
resilience of disadvantaged populations is not just a matter of equity
and public health--although it is both--it is a responsible investment
of tax dollars. Improving resilience reduces the costs of future
natural disasters and the economic disruption associated with related
dislocations. In addition, providing federal funding for resilience
projects spurs economic development in needy communities, as many
residential resilience projects are dependent on skilled roofers,
contractors, and other technicians. Congress can consider the following
measures to improve the resilience of our most vulnerable populations.
Housing for disadvantaged populations should be based on
three-prong foundation of affordability, resilience, and energy-
efficiency. By doing so, it is possible to create sustainable and
affordable homes that reduce costs in the short term through reduced
water and energy bills and avoid future loss, disruption, and
displacement through resilient construction or retrofits. The
convergence of affordability, resilience and energy-efficiency is
already occurring in Louisiana, where an affordable housing project
from the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority mandated that affordable
housing be built to IBHS's FORTIFIED standard and the Energy Star Homes
Version 3.0 standard.
Congress can support this type of sustainable housing
by mandating resilience investment set-asides in all appropriations for
affordable housing. In the last Congress, H.R. 5187--the ``Housing is
Infrastructure Act of 2020'' would have provided additional funding for
public housing, rural housing, Tribal housing, supportive housing for
the elderly and differently abled, and affordable housing. In each
instance the bill would have reserved 10 percent of funding for
activities related to energy and water efficiency. This Congress can
take up a revised version of this bill so that it includes a 20 percent
set-aside for activities related to energy and water efficiency and
resilience.
In addition, Congress can reauthorize the
Weatherization Assistance Program and expand it to provide technical
support and financial assistance for resilience projects as well as
energy efficiency.
Although tax credits such as those contemplated by
proposals like the SHELTER ACT can incentivize homeowners of financial
means, they do not help low- and moderate-income populations who have
neither adequate taxable income for the credits to be meaningful nor
the resources to make resilience investments without more significant
aid. Congress can explore making resilience tax credits transferable to
expand their applicability for all Americans. Transferable tax credits
for resilience investments could allow private and non-profit
organizations to use the credits as a funding stream for residential
resilience projects in the affordable housing space.
Congress can create a Community Disaster Resilience Zones
(CDRZ) and related bond program to direct public and private sector
resources to address significant natural disaster risk of exposed
communities with an emphasis on underserved socio-economic areas. By
providing preferential treatment for investments in these zones, such a
program would catalyze private sector investments in projects that
strengthen residential and community resilience in at-need communities.
4. Optimize Existing Federal Pipelines for Resilience Funding
Congress already devotes significant resources to resilience, in
both the pre-disaster and post-disaster contexts. In 2018, Congress
made significant strides towards supporting resilience to natural
perils by passing the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, which led
to the creation of the BRIC program. By authorizing the President to
set aside six percent of the total amount of disaster recovery grants
awarded from the Disaster Relief Fund for pre-disaster resilience
investments, Congress steered a powerful shift in the way the federal
government prepares communities for future natural disasters. Now that
the BRIC program has been implemented, we have greater insight into how
Congress could further optimize this important resilience tool.
The 25% state cost-share for BRIC funding may create a
significant barrier for underserved communities with small tax bases
and fewer resources in taking advantage of the program. This inherently
inequitable outcome runs contrary to the purpose of the program.
Congress can address this issue by allowing greater flexibility for the
state cost-share of BRIC funds (i) by allowing states to buy down their
share through resilience-advancing actions like smart land use and
modern building codes and (ii) by allowing SLTT entities to partner
with private and philanthropic sources to pay for some of the cost
share. While SLTTs should always have some skin in the game, greater
flexibility in putting together the state cost-share will make BRIC
more meaningful for underserved communities and, thus, more equitable.
The BRIC program could be better calibrated to fund
residential resilience projects in two ways. First, Congress can direct
FEMA to create a pilot program to help establish residential resilience
grant programs. Grants are more effective tools than reimbursements,
especially for disadvantaged populations, because funding is provided
up front. Second, the BRIC application process can be streamlined to
make it easier for projects involving multiple structures to qualify
for funding by instituting a benefit cost analysis (BCA) waiver for
SLTT initiatives that fund certain kinds of residential resilience
projects, such as grant programs supporting Fortified retrofits. FEMA
has previously taken steps like this for other programs, such as in the
Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings (P-804).
Congress can amend the Stafford Act to make BRIC and HMGP
funds interchangeable in two key respects. Successful BRIC applicants
should be awarded applicable HMGP funds before BRIC funds--a change
that will spend down unused HMGP funds and prevent BRIC
oversubscription. Additionally, expired HMGP funds should be swept into
the BRIC program to avoid wasting government funding earmarked for
resilience projects. By making BRIC and HMGP funds more
interchangeable, FEMA can maximize its ability to fund resilience
projects.
In addition to BRIC, Congress has an opportunity to strengthen
other government programs intended to build residential and community
resilience both before and after natural disasters. The following
opportunities could strengthen, expand, or otherwise optimize existing
programs in ways that will aid residential resilience.
The time after a natural disaster, particularly one which
displaces a family, is the worst time to contend with government
bureaucracy. The process by which homeowners apply for post-disaster
relief from FEMA, HUD, and SBA should be simplified and streamlined.
Congress can direct these agencies and departments to develop a single
application and tracking process to support Americans seeking
government aid when they are most vulnerable.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides post-
disaster low-interest loans to business owners and homeowners, one of
the primary sources of financial assistance for long-term disaster
recovery. These resilience-supporting loans are only available in the
disaster recovery context. Congress can direct SBA to expand its
physical damage loan and mitigation assistance programs to apply in the
pre-disaster context as well, helping homeowners to finance sunny-day
resilience projects.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Community Development Block Grants-Disaster Recovery Program (CDBG-DR)
is designed to provide funds to address needs not met by other federal
disaster recovery programs. Consistent with the recommendation by the
House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Congress should
permanently authorize the HUD CDBG-DR program.
Prioritizing Resilient Infrastructure
Last month, we witnessed the devastating, cascading impacts that
vulnerable infrastructure can have on the resilience of homes. When a
cold snap caused power outages throughout the state of Texas, unheated
pipes froze and burst--resulting in the unfamiliar sight of residents
boiling melted snow for drinking water and causing the dislocation of
families and billions of dollars in losses.
As this cascading chain of damage in Texas demonstrates, the
resilience of homes is intrinsically connected to the resilience of
community infrastructure, especially water and energy infrastructure.
As Congress works with the Biden Administration to develop an ambitious
infrastructure bill, we urge this Subcommittee to champion resilience
and climate change adaptation as central objectives of that
legislation. The failure to make resilience to severe weather and a
changing climate a central component of new infrastructure is a missed
opportunity that will result in higher disaster relief costs for
generations to come.
In this context, we suggest three additional policies and programs
that Congress could consider that would advance the resilience of
families, communities, and our Nation.
On his first day in office, President Biden reinstated
the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS), which requires that
federally funded projects be resilient to flood hazard. The common-
sense purpose of the FFRMS is to provide reasonable assurance that the
American taxpayer need not pay twice for the same project. Congress
should enshrine the FFRMS in statute and expand it to require that
federally funded projects be designed and built for resilience to other
significant natural perils, including high winds and wildfire. Above
all, ensure that this Flood Standard applies to all funds expended
under any new infrastructure bill being considered by the full
Committee.
Public buildings and facilities that are built to
withstand natural perils can provide a refuge during natural disasters,
contribute to the continuity of government services following the
disaster, and can be affordably insured. Too often, however, they are
not built with resilience in mind and are not insured, instead
contributing to both the resilience gap and the insurance coverage gap.
Congress should encourage and help fund the resilience of public
buildings and facilities. Additionally, and as proposed by the House
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Congress can allow SLTTs to use
Stafford Act funds for the payment of insurance premiums and
deductibles. Together, this can result in public buildings and
facilities that are physically and financially more resilient.
Congress can also consider putting limits on Stafford Act
funding for SLTTs without appropriate insurance coverage for public
buildings, so that Public Assistance is not treated as a de facto
public insurance program.
In closing, I would like to thank you for the recognizing the
importance of resilience and the critical role IBHS research plays to
help strengthen the built environment. Americans are not powerless
against severe weather--it is possible to reduce the damage inflicted
today and in the future. Meeting this pressing need will take an ``all
of the above'' approach for which Congress plays an essential role. I
appreciate the opportunity to share some of our ideas with you today.
appendix a
Data provided by the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright. I like your
comment, ``Climate change barged through the front door of
American families.''
Mr. Wright. It did.
Ms. Titus. I may have to use that, but I promise I will
footnote you if I do.
Mr. Wright. It is all yours.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
We will go to Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Chairwoman Titus, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you on behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
This afternoon, I would like to just underscore a few of
the points from my written testimony, and as others have noted,
the bottom line is we are losing the battle with extreme
weather.
A couple of points to note: The Congressional Budget Office
has warned of an estimated average cost to the Federal
Government of at least $17 billion every year; that cost is
only for losses associated with hurricane winds and storm-
related flooding.
Presidential disaster declarations since 2000, we totaled
up the obligated amounts for repairing or rebuilding utilities,
public buildings, water and wastewater facilities, and other
assets. Excluding emergency work, we are talking $67 billion.
But as others have said, we can do better because pre-disaster
mitigation pays.
The National Institute of Building Sciences, as the chair
and the ranking member have noted, give us the figures of how
much we could be saving for every dollar spent. But even as we
slowly work our way to correct the problems with buildings and
infrastructure at risk today, we fear that we add to the
problem with new investments that don't have ample protection.
This sort of shortsighted spending should stop and it can.
There are already important instances of resilience
investment that show us what can be gained and what is
possible. Take the case of the Texas Medical Center devastated
by Hurricane Allison, but restored with resilient features to
be strong enough to withstand the ravages of Harvey, or the
Spaulding Rehab Hospital built to serve a waterfront community
in Boston, but built to continue functioning as sea levels
rise.
Consider the innovation and the no-regrets adaptation
solutions that architects, planners, and engineers are
designing; restored rather than filled wetlands that keep homes
from flooding and stop sewage overflows; oyster reefs
protecting roadways; rail line piers that can be elevated as
needed rising along with the sea; levees set back from rivers
that redirect flood waters and restore habitat.
Many resiliency solutions will bring multiple benefits,
keep businesses open and supply lines functioning, offer
employment, bring open space to harsh environments, and address
those painful social inequities. Some use nature itself to
bring down the cost.
It is perplexing then that such approaches have not been
deployed more widely, that more communities, more developers,
and more public and private investors have not completed
thorough, forward-looking vulnerability assessments, made
sensible siting choices, and embraced modern building codes.
That is why we believe that you must act swiftly in your
infrastructure work to address this growing resilience gap. We
are hopeful that you will require new investments in
transportation to incorporate resilience, new investment
authorizations for water infrastructure to require assessment
of vulnerabilities and getting ready for weather extremes, and
assuring that new Federal funding for housing projects with
Federal funds choose not the low-lying risky land because it is
cheap, but incorporate proven means of keeping people high and
dry and safe.
As Chairman DeFazio has noted, this has been done before in
the NDAA, and you can do it again. We certainly call your
attention to H.R. 481, the Flood Resiliency and Taxpayer
Savings Act, introduced by Congressmen Price and Zeldin. We
think that is worth your swift action.
In closing, I thank the chair for taking up this important
issue, and for inviting Pew to engage in this discussion. I
look forward to your questions.
[Ms. Smith's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Velma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer,
Flood-Prepared Communities Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts
Chairwoman Titus, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of The Pew
Charitable Trusts (Pew), I thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. My name is Velma Smith. I am a senior officer working with Pew's
flood-prepared communities initiative.
Pew's flood-prepared communities initiative has been focused on the
increasingly costly and common problems of floods and flooding damage.
Our aim is to reduce the impact of flood-related disasters on the U.S.
economy, communities, and environment. Pew is working to prioritize
investments in flood-ready infrastructure, mitigate against the impact
of disasters, modernize flood insurance, and promote nature-based
solutions to flooding. Given that work and the fact that flooding and
coastal storms have accounted for roughly 70 percent of all
Presidential Disaster Declarations over the past decade \1\, my
comments this afternoon will focus largely on how flooding has and can
impact communities and how Congress might address these problems in the
context of infrastructure investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, OpenFEMA Data Sets,
Disaster Declaration Summaries, https://www.fema.gov/about/openfema/
data-sets
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costly Disasters are on the Rise
First, the overall disaster numbers and the trendline. Flooding and
other weather-related disasters are on the rise. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tells us that 2020 set numerous
records \2\: 22 extreme weather and climate events caused $1 billion or
more in losses, jumping from a previous high of 16 that occurred in
both 2011 and 2017. Western wildfires reached historic proportions in
2020, and the Atlantic hurricane season produced 30 named storms, 12 of
those making landfall in the contiguous U.S. Last year's record events
came on the heels of the third consecutive decade in which the mounting
number and costs experienced by the country reached levels never before
seen. Totals have now exceeded $1.8 trillion in aggregate since
1980.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Centers for Environmental Information, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``Billion-Dollar Weather and
Climate Disasters: Overview,'' https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
overview
\3\ National Centers for Environmental Information, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``Billion-Dollar Weather and
Climate Disasters: Summary Stats,'' https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
summary-stats
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs are Felt by Communities and the American Taxpayer
Those disasters and many others whose impacts did not hit the
billion dollar mark have proven costly to U.S. families and businesses,
localities and states, and to federal taxpayers who pay a significant
portion toward disaster losses--over and above emergency assistance--
through programs such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) Public Assistance and Individual Assistance programs, the U.S.
Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Emergency Relief Program, the Small Business Administration's
disaster loan programs, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery
(CDBG-DR) and more.
Without consistent accounting of costs across federal agencies and
states \4\, it is hard to know precisely how much is being spent, but a
snapshot of just one program suggests the scale of the threat. Pew
looked specifically at the monies spent under FEMA's Public Assistance
Program (PA) to help communities build back and repair damaged public
buildings, utilities, water systems, roads, and other public assets.\5\
Overall, for disasters declared from 2000 to the present, the amount
obligated for PA, excluding emergency protective management, debris
removal, and state management assistance, tops $67 billion.
Expenditures on public utilities and buildings account for the lion's
share: more than $26 billion for utilities and more than $23 billion
for buildings. In looking at this number, the Committee should keep in
mind that obligations for the more recent disasters will grow. This
data counts only the projects for which plans have been made and
obligations approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Pew Charitable Trusts, ``How States Pay for Natural
Disasters in an Era of Rising Costs: A nationwide assessment of
budgeting strategies and practices,'' https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/
media/assets/2020/05/how-states-pay-for-natural-disasters-in-an-era-of-
rising-costs.pdf ; and Government Accountability Office, ``High-Risk
Series: Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most
High-Risk Areas,'' GAO-21-119SP, March 2, 2021, https://files.gao.gov/
reports/GAO-21-119SP/index.html
\5\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, OpenFEMA Dataset: Public
Assistance Funded Projects Details, updated March 3, 2021, https://
www.fema.gov/openfema-data-page/public-assistance-funded-projects-
details-v1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another tally comes from a study released in 2017. That analysis by
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) \6\ looked at risk and loss
associated specifically with hurricane winds and storm-related flooding
across three sectors: residential, commercial, and public. It estimated
expected average annual costs to the federal government--assuming the
status quo in terms of public policy and excluding some federal costs
as well as costs borne by state and local governments--an average cost
of $17 billion per year. One of the options to alter this outlook, CBO
noted, was to ``increase funding for mitigation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Congressional Budget Office, ``Expected Costs of Damage From
Hurricane Winds and Storm-Related Flooding,'' April 2019, https://
www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-04/55019-ExpectedCostsFromWindStorm.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
repeated its own warnings about the risks of climate change.\7\ Since
2019, GAO's High-Risk Report has called on the government to improve
its preparation for future disaster, and its accounting of disaster
spending. According to GAO, the federal government must address the
long-term financial exposure of disaster assistance programs and
``fully implement measures that promote resilience.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Government Accountability Office, ``High-Risk Series: Dedicated
Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most High-Risk
Areas,'' GAO-21-119SP, March 2, 2021, https://files.gao.gov/reports/
GAO-21-119SP/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It Pays to Prepare
On the mitigation side of the disaster balance sheet, there are
compelling numbers as well, because--as others on this panel have
underscored--mitigation pays. Many studies of mitigation efforts have
shown what can be gained.
The most widely quoted of these studies comes from the National
Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council,
a panel of experts in fields related to the building sciences. This
group has taken a rigorous look at mitigation projects of multiple
types, including adoption and enforcement of building codes and
mitigation for different types of community infrastructure. In some
categories, NIBS researchers have been able to revisit their own work
and refine it over multiple years. Their conclusions, over and over
again, tell us that mitigation saves and that the sooner the mitigation
actions are taken, the more the associated benefits will multiply. The
amount of savings varies by type and by project, but overall, the
numbers run in ranges from $2 in savings per mitigation dollar invested
to as high as $11 saved per dollar invested.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Institute of Building Sciences Multihazard Mitigation
Council, ``Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report,'' December
2019, https://www.nibs.org/page/mitigationsaves; and National Institute
of Building Sciences Multihazard Mitigation Council, ``Natural Hazard
Mitigation Saves: Utilities and Transportation Infrastructure,''
October 2018, https://www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/docs/NHMS-
UtilitiesFactSheet.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous studies echo those findings. For example, researchers
found great value in homes built in compliance with strong, wind-
resistant codes; they reported damage reductions of greater than 70
percent, compared with other structures.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Simmons, Kevin M., et al., ``Economic Effectiveness of
Implementing a Statewide Building Code: The Case of Florida,'' Land
Economics, May 2018, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/690441 ; and Kusisto,
Laura and Arian Campo-Flores, ``Homes Built to Stricter Standards Fared
Better in Storm,'' Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2017, https://
www.wsj.com/articles/one-early-lesson-from-irma-hurricane-building-
codes-work-1505559600
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other work in Florida, where loss avoidance from past mitigation
projects is analyzed by the State after major storm events,\10\ shows
large benefits from activities such as buyouts of flood-prone
structures, elevation of buildings, and improvements to storm drainage.
The State of Florida studies conclude that ``mitigating the risk of
natural hazards in Florida is a sound investment'' with a positive
economic benefit in terms of employment and economic stabilization
following a disaster.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Florida Division of Emergency Management, ``Loss Avoidance
Assessment: Hurricane Matthew (DR-4283),'' April 2017, https://
www.floridadisaster.org/globalassets/importedpdfs/01_dr-4283-loss-
avoidance-report.pdf; and ``Loss Avoidance Assessment: Tropical Storm
Debby: FEMA-4068-DR-FL, Flood Mitigation Projects, LA #2012-01,''
https://www.floridadisaster.org/globalassets/importedpdfs/report-
tsdebby-la.pdf
\11\ Koon, Bryan W., et. al., ``Florida Division of Emergency
Management's Bureau of Mitigation Economic Impact Analysis,'' August
2011, https://www.floridadisaster.org/globalassets/importedpdfs/fdem-
economic-impact-analysis-final-3.14.12.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the devastating 2013 floods in Colorado, analysts also
determined that stronger building requirements, setbacks and
restrictions on the siting of critical facilities kept storm damages
from running even higher than encountered, but they also found that
earlier and more widespread adoption of mitigation requirements could
have reduced the costs even further. This investigation concluded that
if older critical facilities, including police stations, emergency
operations centers, hospital emergency rooms, fire stations, and
schools, had been removed from flood zones, damages might have been cut
substantially. One of the recommendations in this FEMA report is for
more widespread adoption of critical facility siting restrictions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ FEMA, ``Reducing Losses through Higher Regulatory Standards:
2013 Colorado Floods Case Study, FEMA-DR-4145-CO,'' March 2015,
prepared by Dewberry Consultants LLC for FEMA, https://www.fema.gov/
media-library-data/1429759760513-f96124536d2c3ccc07b3db4a4f8c35b5/
FEMA_CO_RegulatoryLAS.pdf ; and FEMA Region VIII, ``Loss Avoidance
Study: The water didn't stop.'' http://www.casfm.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/08/R8_Loss_Avoidance_Study.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation Lags as Costs and Threats Mount
Despite the proven value of mitigation and disturbing predictions
of more frequent severe storms and rising sea levels, we too often fail
to act. Localities hesitate to restrict new building in risky areas or
adopt and enforce the most recent building codes. On this point, FEMA's
National Advisory Council in 2019 has warned that nearly 70 percent of
the more than 23,000 cities and towns facing floods, high wind,
hurricane, seismic, or tornado hazards had not adopted or enforced the
latest protection codes.\13\ Without up-to-date codes and proper
planning, low-lying, damaged structures are rebuilt with the same
vulnerabilities; public buildings, including those that provide
essential services or store important public records are too often
repeatedly damaged and repaired without major improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``National Advisory
Council Report to the FEMA Administrator, November 2019,'' https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_nac-report_11-2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no publicly available database with information on those
assets that have been damaged numerous times and repaired or replaced
using federal funding, though a Department of Transportation rule now
requires states to begin gathering and reporting this information to
the Department.\14\ We do know, however that some assets that may be in
harm's way, in fact, belong to the federal government. After reviewing
just a portion of the federal property inventory, the Office of
Management and Budget identified more than $80 billion in federal
assets located in designated flood zones.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Asset Management Plans and
Periodic Evaluations of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and
Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events,'' Final Rule, 81 FR 73196,
October 24, 2016, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2016-10-24/
2016-25117
\15\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Climate Change: The Fiscal
Risks Facing the Federal Government, Preliminary Assessment,'' November
2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
reports/omb_climate_change_fiscal_risk_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some disaster experts, like the researchers at the Wharton School,
place at least part of the blame for inaction on disaster or flood
amnesia \16\--perhaps a very human and understandable tendency to put
aside the traumas of the big events. They also point out the very real
need for better public education and hazard risk disclosure.\17\ Pew
agrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Kunreuther, Howard, ``Improving the National Flood Insurance
Program,'' Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, 2018,
https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/
improving_the_national_flood_insurance_program.-Behavioral-Public-
Policy-2018.pdf
\17\ Kousky, Carolyn, ``How Americans Fail at Communicating Flood
Risk,'' Bloomberg CityLab, October 11, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2018-10-11/why-flood-risk-information-doesn-t-reach-the-
american-public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disasters Create Cascading Consequences and Long-Term Costs
We might also suggest that, at some level, we may be allowing the
large and growing numbers to deceive us. We total up the costs the best
we can and as we should, but when we focus solely on the billions of
dollars, perhaps we forget other important facets of disaster. The
aggregate numbers can obscure the cascading impacts that follow a
failure to invest in resiliency, the lasting consequences, the human-
scale tragedies, and the true fragility of critical lifelines.
In looking only at the totals, we tend to forget what FEMA's
Federal Advisory Council reminds us in their 2020 report \18\ to the
Agency: ``[D]isasters disproportionately affect those who are already
socio-economically marginalized in a community, subjecting them to even
greater depths of poverty.'' We may not see the true gravity of a storm
that damages a small hospital in a rural community where that hospital
is not only a health care lifeline but also the major employer. We may
put aside that image of wheel-chair-bound seniors sitting in waist-deep
flood waters in Dickinson, Texas during Hurricane Harvey.\19\ We may
not readily consider the dangers to first responders driving on flooded
roadways, the disruptions to important supply chains when interstates
are closed for days or weeks, the sewage spills that threaten public
health and close recreational facilities, or the water or power
disruptions and their secondary impacts. Or we may miss the report that
tells of more than 5,000 children separated from their families after
Hurricane Katrina, some for months.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``National Advisory
Council Report to the FEMA Administrator, November 2019,'' https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nac-report_11-2020.pdf
\19\ Villafranca, Omar, CBS News, ``Elderly are among the most
vulnerable during Harvey,'' August 28, 2017, https://www.cbsnews.com/
news/hurricane-harvey-senior-citizens-nursing-home-dickinson-texas-
elderly-vulnerable/
\20\ Broughton, D., et. al., ``Getting 5000 Families Back Together:
Reuniting Fractured Families After a Disaster: The Role of the National
Center for Missing & Exploited Children,'' Pediatrics, 117, Supplement,
May 2006, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/
Supplement_4/S442.short
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But perhaps we should give more weight to these stories and
statistics that show us how disaster--and the failure to anticipate
disaster--can exacerbate existing inequities and frailties in our
communities and how the vulnerability of one asset can reverberate
across a town or an entire region.
Today, Pew is hopeful that the experiences of past disasters as
well as the mounting costs will instill in the members of this
Committee a sense of urgency to close the nation's resilience gap. We
believe you can do so by making certain that new investments in
infrastructure incorporate new requirements for resilience.
Some might counter that requirements for new infrastructure
projects to assess hazards and incorporate protections will be too
costly; that unneeded delays will occur. Clearly, a balance must be
struck, but we ask the Committee to consider the wasted costs that
accrue when a vulnerable facility must be repaired or rebuilt
repeatedly. And to keep in mind the delays and disruptions to family
and civic life when a community loses water or power, shutters a
school, or finds itself isolated by destroyed bridges and impassable
roads.
Resiliency Initiatives Point the Way to Progress
As this Subcommittee considers how to support resilient
infrastructure investment and what levels of assistance to offer, there
is also good news. There are already successes: projects and programs
that recognize risks and build in a capacity for durability and
resilience. A few of these may be useful to your deliberations. They
should give you assurance that resilience can grow, if you make it a
priority for infrastructure spending.
Healthcare Facilities
Take a look at the University of Texas Medical Center. In 2001, one
storm dumped as much as 80 percent of the rainfall that Houston and
Harris County, Texas would normally experience over a full year.\21\
Tropical Storm Allison was cited as a 1,000-year event and called by
some the worst urban storm in the U.S. to that point.\22\ At the
largest aggregated medical campus in the country, water rose 22 feet
and the force of flow through the sprawling operation and its
underground tunnels was enough to blow doors off their hinges and cause
cinderblock walls to collapse.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Harris County Flood Control District, ``Tropical Storm
Allison,'' undated, https://www.hcfcd.org/storm-center/tropical-storm-
allison-2001/
\22\ U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, ``After Record-Breaking
Rains, a Major Medical Center's Hazard Mitigation Plan Improves
Resilience,'' https://toolkit.climate.gov/case-studies/after-record-
breaking-rains-major-medical-centers-hazard-mitigation-plan-improves
\23\ Tucker, Edgar L. and Angela N. Smith, ``Planning for the Worst
at the World's Largest Medical Complex,'' presented at the Texas
Emergency Management Conference, March 26, 2013, https://
www.preparingtexas.org/Resources/documents/
2013%20Conference%20Presentations/Planning%20for%20the%20Worst.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flood took out all essential services: electrical power,
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, water, fire detection and
suppression, and sewage. Medical personnel managed evacuation of
patients, sometimes transferring equipment and staff with patients
headed to facilities that would otherwise have been unable to care for
them. Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine lost one of the
world's most extensive collections of breast cancer specimens--some
60,000 specimens collected over a period of 25 years.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Bankhead, Charles, ``Tropical Storm Sets Back Research in
Houston,'' Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 93, Issue
18, http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/18/1366.long
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid a repeat of the Allison disaster, the Center undertook an
extensive review of vulnerabilities of the entire campus and developed
a comprehensive plan to manage risks into the future. Improvements
included a new, elevated combined heat and power utility plant,
multiple flood doors and gates to close off areas susceptible to
flooding, an elevated utility raceway that also serves as a pedestrian
walkway, rooftop telecom cell towers, major improvements in drainage
and stormwater management across the campus and in the larger
watershed, a state-of-the-art flood warning system, various perimeter
berms and barriers to protect facilities up to the 500-year flood
level.\25\ In addition, because the Houston area has experienced ground
subsidence of more than three feet since 1976 and that subsidence can
alter the flood-readiness of buildings, a solar-powered system for
monitoring ground subsidence was installed.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Fang, Zheng , et.al., ``Case Study of Flood Mitigation and
Hazard Management at the Texas Medical Center in the Wake of Tropical
Storm Allison in 2001,'' Natural Hazards Review, Vol 15, Issue 3, Aug
2014, https://www.buildinggreen.com/sites/default/files/
Fang14TMC_Final.pdf
\26\ U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, ``After Record-Breaking
Rains, a Major Medical Center's Hazard Mitigation Plan Improves
Resilience,'' https://toolkit.climate.gov/case-studies/after-record-
breaking-rains-major-medical-centers-hazard-mitigation-plan-improves
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These improvements allowed the Center to continue functioning
throughout Hurricane Harvey.\27\ The storm presented challenges for
receiving patients and rotating medical staff and security, and one
hospital suffered a broken water pipe, but overall, the Center's
preparation allowed it to function and to return to a normal schedule
as the floodwaters cleared in the area. As former Congressman Ken
Bentsen noted in an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, ``With the region
knocked to its knees, the Medical Center stood tall on dry land.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Galehouse, Maggie, ``Despite Hurricane Harvey, TMC
Institutions Are Operational and Accessible,'' TMC News, Aug 28, 2017,
http://www.tmc.edu/news/2017/08/despite-hurricane-harvey-tmc-
institutions-operational-accessible/
\28\ Bentsen, Ken, ``Bentsen: The Texas Medical Center defeated
Harvey,'' The Houston Chronicle, Sep 4, 2017, http://
www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Bentsen-The-Texas-
Medical-Center-defeated-Harvey-12172307.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As compelling as this story is, there are even more good examples
in this arena. Many public health and medical professionals and in the
engineering and architectural services that support them are taking the
risks of climate change and future disasters to heart. Other
facilities, like the LEED-gold-certified Spaulding Rehabilitation
Hospital in Charlestown, Massachusetts, are being built with resiliency
as a priority.\29\ Sited on the waterfront, the Spaulding facility was
designed around sea level rise projections out to the year 2100. The
facility's first floor was placed as high as possible; critical
mechanical and electrical equipment are on the roof, and patient-
critical functions have been kept off the ground floor. Building
designers included a combined heat and power plant for backup power;
elevated all vents; incorporated operable windows; and designed the
landscaping to offer reef-like barriers to mitigate against storm
surge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Urban Land Institute, ``Developing Urban Resilience: Spaulding
Rehabilitation Hospital,'' 2018, https://developingresilience.uli.org/
case/spaulding-rehabilitation-hospital/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Charlestown facility completed in 2013 is just one belonging to
Massachusetts-based Partners HealthCare, which has since taken on the
task of assessing the risks posed by climate change and weather
disasters to all of its facilities and services.\30\ For this effort,
the company is using its own expertise developed during the planning
for Spaulding as well as guidance on best practices developed by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Morgan, Jamie, ``Partners HealthCare undergoes systemwide
resiliency assessment,'' Health Facilities Managment, https://
www.hfmmagazine.com/articles/3475-partners-healthcare-undergoes-
systemwide-resiliency-assessment
\31\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ``Primary
Protection: Enhancing Health Care Resilience for a Changing Climate,''
Fall 2014, https://toolkit.climate.gov/sites/default/files/
SCRHCFI%20Best%20Practices%20Report%20final2%202014%20Web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, not every medical facility could accomplish the massive
re-engineering that occurred in Houston, and not every feature of the
Spaulding facility will transfer elsewhere, but to the extent that
Congress funds the infrastructure aspects of our health care
facilities, it should assure that any new resources help to make these
critical facilities safer and more reliable in the face of disaster.
Transportation
The transportation sector, as well, has positive news and
developments and examples of innovation in preparedness. On that front,
we again thank the Committee for the groundwork it laid last year for
reauthorizing highway programs. We understand that resilience in
surface transportation can be complex, perhaps the ultimate example of
connectedness. That is why we wholeheartedly endorse the Committee's
proposals to incorporate resiliency into the long-term planning and
asset management programs that are the heart of the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP).\32\ We also support the creation of a new
pre-disaster mitigation program, efforts to use natural infrastructure
for flood resilience, and, where possible, the relocation or
construction of alternatives to repeatedly damaged facilities. We
recommend that we incentivize action on those repeatedly flooded
transportation assets with changes to the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) Emergency Relief (ER) program: requiring
resiliency improvements and protective features for the non-emergency
and permanent work undertaken with ER allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Letter from Thomas Wathen, The Pew Charitable Trusts to The
Honorable Nancy Pelosi, The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, The Honorable
Peter DeFazio, The Honorable Sam Graves, June 29, 2020, https://
www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/06/pew-letter-on-transportation-
reauthorization-bill.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the transportation sector, we see indication that resilience
advancements are both needed and feasible today: in Delaware, where
oyster reefs are part of the solution to protecting a coastal highway;
\33\ in Arkansas, where the State Game and Fish Commission, the Nature
Conservancy, the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, and other
partners have set up a program to reduce flooding on rural roads and at
the same time improve water quality and protect habitat; \34\ in
California, where designers address the threat of rising seas to a
coastal rail line with a structural solution that is, itself,
adaptable: precast piers and caps that allow insertion of additional
pier segments, if needed.\35\ In Virginia, the Hampton Roads
Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is working with military
leadership in the region to address the impacts of sea level rise that
threaten military readiness and the transportation needs of the region,
collaborating to set priorities for protecting road segments, tunnels,
and bridges vulnerable to future damage and destruction,\36\ and the
Department of Transportation itself is advancing resilience with
trainings and outreach for highway planners and engineers based on
their implementation guide ``Nature-Based Solutions for Coastal Highway
Resilience.'' \37\ In this sector as well, there is ample evidence that
new infrastructure should and can incorporate resilience. Resiliency is
what we should demand of new roads and bridges built today and going
forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Hodges, Tina, Federal Highway Administration, ``Nature-based
Resilience for Coastal Highways,'' presentation to the International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, July 29, 2018, https://
ewn.el.erdc.dren.mil/workshops/2018_07-29-NNBF-short-course/ppt/1145-
1205_Hodges-NNBFTransportationCaseStudy.pdf
\34\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``Better Unpaved Roads
for Nature and People in Arkansas,'' 2021, https://www.fema.gov/case-
study/better-unpaved-roads-nature-and-people-arkansas; Kloer, Phil,
``The dirt road connection: Arkansas multi-partner project benefits
residents, endangered and at-risk species,'' U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, August 29, 2017, https://www.fws.gov/southeast/articles/the-
dirt-road-connection/
\35\ Wright, Richard N., ``Adapting Infrastructure and Civil
Engineering Practice to a Changing Climate,'' presentation to the
National Academies' Roundtable on Science and Technology for
Sustainability, June 5, 2015, https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/
groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_165893.pdf
\36\ Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, ``Hampton
Roads Military Transportation Needs Study: Roadways Serving the
Military and Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge,'' July 2013, https://
www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/
Roadways%20Serving%20the%20Military%20&%20Sea
%20Level%20Rise-Storm%20Surge%20Report.pdf
\37\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Implementation Guide:
Nature-based Solutions for Coastal Highway Resilience,'' September
2019, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/
ongoing_and_current_research/green_infrastructure/implementation_guide/
fhwahep19042.pdf ; and FHWA, ``Peer Exchange Report: Nature-based
Solutions for Coastal Highways,'' August 2018, https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/
ongoing_and_current_research/green_infrastructure/coastal_highways/
fhwahep18070.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and wastewater utilities
Water and wastewater utilities, as well, have and will be impacted
by erratic and wild weather that can bring both drought and flood, and
some in this industry are leading efforts to adapt, seeking to avoid
problems with service shutdowns and sewage overflows. Just over a
decade ago, a report produced by the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies conducted what they called an early analysis of
adaptation costs through the year 2050.\38\ That assessment indicated
that costs to utilities could range from just under $500 billion to
more than $900 billion. Some of these utilities, have already
undertaken some adaptations--including the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District which is solving flooding problems and greening the
region with an ambitious nature-based stormwater management
program.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ National Association of Clean Water Agencies, ``Confronting
Climate Change: An Early Analysis of Water and Wastewater Adaptation
Costs,'' October 2009, https://www.amwa.net/publication/confronting-
climate-change-early-analysis-water-and-wastewater-adaptation-costs-
2009
\39\ Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Green
Infrastructure, https://www.mmsd.com/what-we-do/green-infrastructure ;
The Pew Charitable Trusts, ``Milwaukee's Sustainability Leader Advances
a Back-to-Nature Strategy to Lower Risk,'' July 20, 2020, https://
www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/07/20/
milwaukees-sustainability-leader-advances-a-back-to-nature-strategy-to-
lower-flood-risk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing
Others on this panel have provided ample information about the
value of and the need for more resilience in the housing sector, but we
would also mention a recent initiative there, one aimed at enhancing
protections for multi-family housing and keeping those units
affordable. The Keep Safe Miami initiative \40\ is a new outgrowth of
work by Enterprise Community Partners, a non-profit with a strong
record of assistance for communities recovering from disasters. The
Miami work builds on previous manuals and trainings on resiliency,\41\
now offering owners and operators of affordable housing a set of tools
that will help them assess the vulnerabilities of their properties,
consider adaptation strategies for their specific portfolio of
properties, set priorities, and guide them through the options for
financing new resilience investments. At the same time, the program
will train residents on disaster preparedness and steps they can take
to save money with energy efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Enterprise Community Partners, ``Keep Safe Miami,'' 2021,
https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/solutions-and-innovation/emergency-
management/keep-safe-miami
\41\ Shoeman, Laurie, Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., ``Ready
to Respond: Stragegies for Multifamily Building Resilience,'' 2015,
https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/resources/ready-respond-strategies-
multifamily-building-resilience-13356
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress Must Act
These few examples--across multiple sectors--are encouraging and
worth celebrating. These and more show us that there are multiple
resilience strategies that can protect people and property in a
changing climate. Unfortunately, they have yet to become the norm. They
must, however, for as the Department of Transportation reminds us,
``many of the structures being built today will still be in use fifty
or, in some cases, one hundred years in the future.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``U.S. Department of
Transportation Climate Adaptation Plan: Ensuring Transportation
Infrastructure and System Resilience,'' undated, non-working link on
dot.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why Pew urges this Committee to be clear and specific as
you work on a broad infrastructure package or other legislative
vehicles that will use federal dollars for investment in
infrastructure.
If you stipulate that federal dollars may only be used on projects
adopting appropriate safety approaches, then those investments will
begin to fill the deep and growing resilience gap that researchers have
identified. According to NIBS, the Nation's disaster losses are
increasing by about 6 percent per year, 10 times faster than the
population and costing America an average of $100 billion yearly, they
conclude. The NIBS researchers tell us that the United States could
cost-effectively spend $520 billion to reduce its disaster liability by
$2.2 trillion.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ National Institute of Building Sciences, MultiHazard
Mitigation Council, ``A Roadmap to Resilience Incentivization,'' 2020,
Porter, K.A. and Yuan, J.Q., eds., https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nibs.org/
resource/resmgr/reports/mmc_nibs_resilience_incentiv.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require Consideration of Future Risk
Pew urges the Committee to tie infrastructure funding to
requirements to look forward and consider future risks. For too long
and in too many places, we have built or repaired as if the last large
disaster were an isolated aberration, never to be repeated. This is
particularly true in the case of flooding and coastal storms, where we
foolishly assume that risk is stationary rather than dynamic. Relying
solely on the 100-year floodplain as the metric of flood risk, we would
suggest, is akin to driving the freeway looking only in the rearview
mirror. It doesn't work. We must plan for the harsher hazards on the
horizon.
In 2018, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (NDAA) \44\ addressed this problem when it comes to the military.
It expanded the military's authority to ensure readiness through energy
and disaster resilience. On the flooding front, it called for looking
at the design life of projects, assessing the risks that might be
encountered over that time period, and then incorporating protections
against those risks. It accepted the reality of uncertainty and the
current lack of detailed, site-specific future risk data in some
instances. That is why the statute allows for incorporation of a
straight-forward margin of safety on flood volumes where detailed, as
necessary. Other agencies can and should follow this path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ P.L. 115-232
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leverage Nature-based Solutions
In addition, Pew urges the Committee to direct those who design a
new generation of infrastructure to consider the role that nature can
play--not only in enhancing protections, but also in lowering costs and
providing other important benefits, such as cleaner water, protected or
restored wildlife habitat, tourism, and recreational opportunities.
Nature-based approaches, used in place of or alongside of more
traditional ``grey'' defenses, will frequently be more adaptable,
easier to scale up, and can become stronger and offer more resilience
over time. In many instances, the nature-based solutions are also those
most readily embraced by local communities.
Allow Silos to be Broken
Whether they serve in a large city or a rural village, community
leaders must always look to solve multiple problems. They want to do
more than guard against hazards and can with resilient infrastructure
projects that provide multiple benefits. We are hopeful that
infrastructure legislation will allow for many types of resilience
projects that break down silos and deliver multiple benefits: projects
such as the previously mentioned Arkansas roads program, Atlanta's
green solution to storm sewer pollution in Historic Fourth Ward Park;
\45\ the ouR-HOME project in North Richmond, California,\46\ and a
major river corridor project in Iowa.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The Trust for Public Land, ``City parks, clean water: Making
great places using green infrastructure,'' 2016, https://www.tpl.org/
city-parks-clean-water
\46\ Bay Area Resilient by Design, ouR-HOME, undated, http://
www.resilientbayarea.org/our-home
\47\ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, ``Iowa River Corridor Project:
Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge,'' 2013, https://www.fws.gov/
midwest/planning/PlansByState/IRCP_CMP_final-July10-2013.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge you to allow for and encourage such multi-benefit projects
and to consider targeting funds to communities that have high risks and
high poverty and social vulnerabilities. Many communities need the
types of projects highlighted in this testimony, but not all have the
resources to achieve them. Infrastructure legislation could follow the
model of the new FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
(BRIC) program that offers technical assistance and additional help to
localities with significant resource constraints. Another approach that
the subcommittee may wish to consider is one being explored by disaster
experts at the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA).\48\ With data-
driven analysis of socio-economic as well as physical vulnerabilities,
RAA believes those communities most in need of adaptation assistance
can be identified. Their proposal is for a new program using Community
Disaster Resilience Zones bonds, which could leverage private sector
funds for investments in resilience, adding to the commitments made by
state and federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Conversation with Frank Nutter, President, Reinsurance
Association of America, March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act Now
We also urge this Subcommittee and the full committee to act
swiftly on bipartisan legislation that has been introduced to
specifically address future flood hazards. The Flood Resiliency and
Taxpayer Savings Act, H.R. 481, would make these sorts of important
protections permanent for all federal spending going forward. It is
supported by a wide range of taxpayer and environmental organizations,
housing advocacy groups, insurers, and engineers. We look forward to
timely action on that important proposal as well.
In closing, I'd like to draw your attention to two commission
reports written a decade apart. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who
saw his state suffer enormously from Hurricane Katrina, commissioned a
post-disaster report \49\ that was blunt in its assessment of what had
gone on prior to the storm: ``[W]e're facing some of the same
challenges of recovery, rebuilding, and renewal in 2006 because we
failed to engage them fully after 1969.'' Katrina drove Mississippi to
try to do better, to build back better than they had in recovering from
Hurricane Camille. And after Harvey hit Texas, a state that we all know
has faced a long line of hurricanes, tropical storms, and floods,
Governor Greg Abbott's Commission report,\50\ ``Eye of the Storm'' was
also clear in its urgent call to ``future proof'' Texas and frank about
shortcomings in the State's flood preparedness. Harvey's lessons have
prompted a serious and ambitious effort to bring enhanced flood
resiliency to the Lone Star state as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal,
``After Katrina: Building Back Better than Ever,'' December 31, 2005
\50\ ``Eye of the Storm: Report of the Governor's Commission to
Rebuild Texas,'' November 2018, https://www.rebuildtexas.today/wp-
content/uploads/sites/52/2018/12/12-11-18-EYE-OF-THE-STORM-digital.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress is now poised to address the pressing infrastructure needs
described in the most recent report card issued by the American Society
of Civil Engineers.\51\ As you take on this challenge, we urge you to
seize the opportunity. The time for hesitation has passed. Congress
must require better building practices and more durable infrastructure
protected against future flooding, fire, tornados, and other hazards.
Accelerate the ``future-proofing'' our nation so sorely needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ American Society of Civil Engineers, ``2021 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure,'' https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, we appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in this important
topic and the opportunity to participate today. I look forward to your
questions and working together.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Ms. Smith.
Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Yes, good afternoon. I would like to thank
Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, and other members of
the committee for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Ben Harper, and I am the head of corporate
sustainability at Zurich North America. I am a civil engineer
by training and sit on the sustainability advisory committees
for the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National
Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board, the
Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, and others.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the critical
importance of investing in resiliency and mitigation as we seek
to reduce loss from disasters and speed individual and
community recovery.
Zurich North America is part of Zurich Insurance Group, a
leading multiline insurer that has been serving its customers
in global and local markets for over 150 years. Our role as a
global insurer provides for a unique perspective as to the
required response and our urgency of the need to respond.
My testimony is focused on the importance of physical
resistance from natural hazards. But as risk managers, we fully
recognize the interconnected nature of risk. Using our core
risk assessment skills to respond to some of the most
significant long-term societal and environmental trends, we
have identified climate change as, perhaps, the most complex
risk facing society today. It is intergenerational, it is
international, and it is interdependent.
Our aim at Zurich is to leverage our sector's role of
primary risk signaler for society to help raise awareness of
the increasing frequency and intensity of natural hazard events
and, ultimately, to incentivize the behaviors and best
practices that will be required to both mitigate the worst
impacts, and adapt to changing weather patterns. We do this
because Zurich's mission is to protect individuals, businesses,
and communities, and simply because it is the right thing to
do.
Furthermore, from an industry perspective, we do this
because the impact of extreme weather events is escalating, and
without enhancing resiliency and mitigation measures, many
assets may simply become uninsurable. The property casualty
industry has a tradition of being at the forefront of disaster
mitigation. For example, in the late 1800s, several historic
fires consumed vast areas of our largest cities, including New
York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Recognizing that the new
normal of tightly packed, dense construction greatly elevated
fire hazards, the insurance industry sounded the alarm for
adding sprinklers, fire breaks in construction, and other
mitigation techniques as a necessity to maintaining community
continuity.
The industry was forced to send risk-based price signals,
which is a technical way of saying insurance will be
prohibitively expensive, or certainly unavailable in some cases
if you do not adapt to these practices.
Given the trends that are occurring and the frequency and
severity of weather events, we are, again, sounding this alarm.
Investing in mitigation measures, including resilient
infrastructure, nature-based solutions, and low-carbon
technologies, is required if society is to continue to operate
with the continuity and resiliency that is expected.
It is encouraging, however, that these changes require
minimal investment in comparison to the benefits received. The
2019 analysis of the benefits of building resiliency into
infrastructure systems in developing countries, suggests that
the extra cost of building resilience into these systems is
only 3 percent of overall investment needs.
However, when taken into account with the capital cost and
operating costs of the asset, in most cases, the total life-
cycle cost will be lower in a hardened, resilient structure.
In our own post-event studies conducted after significant
flood, drought, and wildfire events,our analysis shows that
every $1 spent on resiliency upfront resulted in a $5 savings
in post-disaster. Like the integration of fire safety in modern
construction, the necessity of which is unquestioned today, so
should the inclusion of resiliency in building and
infrastructure.
Earlier in this testimony, I noted the concept of
interconnected risk. This is a fundamental concept in risk
management, which is directly applicable when managing physical
risk as we have been discussing. For example, if we provide
business interruption insurance for a casino operating on the
Mississippi coast, which is built with hardened, resilient
components, we need to also consider the supporting
infrastructure that can have a direct impact to that insured.
In this example, the value of the resilient building is
limited if the casino is fully capable of operating after a
major weather impact, but the roadways leading to the facility
are damaged and impassable. This is just one example of why it
is fundamental to consider the supporting infrastructure when
building a complete resilient environment.
I also note the urgency in addressing these issues. Just 2
weeks ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers published
their 2021 America's Infrastructure Report Card, which gave the
U.S. infrastructure an overall grade of C-minus, which, sadly,
is an improvement from the previous score of a D-plus.
Simply put, we are at a crossroads with regards to aging
structures, and combined with the significant increase in
severe weather events, we can no longer afford to deploy
temporary Band-Aid fixes. And without proper resiliency
standards as an integral part of all vertical and horizontal
construction, we will simply be in the same situation we are
facing today, with increased perils without proper preparedness
and all at a significant cost.
Thank you, and I look forward to some of the questions.
[Mr. Harper's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ben Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability,
Zurich North America
Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairwoman Titus, Ranking
Member Webster and other members of the committee for the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Ben Harper and I am the Head of Corporate
Sustainability for Zurich North America.
I am here today to provide testimony as to the critical importance
of investing in resiliency and mitigation as we transition to a new,
low-carbon society and seek to reduce losses from disasters. Our role
as an insurer not only provides us with a unique perspective on the
required response, but also on the urgency in which we need to respond.
Before I start, though, let me introduce the company for which I
work. Zurich North America is part of Zurich Insurance Group, a leading
multi-line insurer that has been serving its customers in global and
local market for 150 years. With approximately 55,000 employees, Zurich
provides a wide range of property and casualty, and life insurance
products and services in more than 215 countries and territories.
Zurich's customers include individuals, small businesses, and mid-sized
to large companies, as well as multinational corporations.
For over a century, Zurich North America has called the greater
Chicago area home. In 2016, Zurich moved its U.S. corporate campus a
few blocks north from its previous location in suburban Schaumburg,
Illinois to an award-winning headquarters that has earned LEED
Platinum certification, the highest rating from the U.S. Green
Building Council. The distinctive design underscores our commitment to
resilience, collaboration and innovation. Our headquarters became the
largest LEED Platinum-certified structure of its kind in the United
States and the only one of its kind in Illinois. On the one-year
anniversary of Zurich's headquarters, we reported a 30% reduction in
water and electricity consumption compared with our previous location.
We have since improved on these metrics, and in North America
operationally have reduced paper consumption by 80% and have eliminated
single-use plastics. Globally, Zurich became carbon neutral in 2014 and
we are committed to using 100 percent renewable energy across our
global operations by 2022. In addition, we recently signed on to the
EV100 pledge, committing to switch our entire global automobile fleet
to electric vehicles by 2030. These are a few examples of adhering to
our commitment to a more sustainable world, which enhances our
customers trust in us as we encourage them to pursue their own
transitions to a more sustainable tomorrow.
As has become particularly evident in the last 12 months, no person
or place is immune from disasters or disaster-related losses. As an
insurer tasked with helping communities, individuals, and businesses
recover from a catastrophe we are at the forefront of realizing and
quantifying the large-scale consequences for the nation and its
communities. We have direct insight into the difficulties in quickly
returning to ``normal'' and are continually looking for solutions to
reduce impacts and shorten recovery times. Infectious disease
outbreaks, terrorism, social unrest, or financial disasters in addition
to natural hazards can all create difficult fiscal, social, cultural,
and environmental choices to ensure basic security and protection
against hazards and disasters. My testimony today will be focused on
the importance of physical resilience from natural hazards but, as risk
managers, we fully recognize the interconnected nature of risk.
Using our core risk assessment skills to respond to some of the
most significant long-term societal and environmental trends, we have
identified climate change as perhaps the most complex risk facing
society today. It is intergenerational; it is international; and it is
interdependent. Representing the consensus of the international
scientific community, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) finds strong evidence that climate change is occurring, that it
is influenced by human action, and that it is leading to changes in
extreme weather and climate events.
For context, global losses from natural disasters in 2020 are
estimated at $210 billion, of which some $82 billion was insured \1\.
Both overall losses and insured losses were significantly higher than
in the previous year (2019: $166bn and $57bn respectively) \2\. The US
share of losses was exceptionally high: natural disasters in the US
accounted for $95 billion (2019: $51bn) of overall losses and $67
billion of insured losses (2019: $26bn) \3\. Globally, of the ten
costliest natural disasters in 2020, six occurred within the United
States \4\. However, the most disturbing statistic is that this year's
natural disasters claimed an estimated 8,200 lives \5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.munichre.com/en/company/media-relations/media-
information-and-corporate-news/media-information/2021/2020-natural-
disasters-balance.html
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ Ibid.
\4\ Ibid
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is Zurich's aim to leverage our sector's role as a primary risk
signaler for society to help raise awareness of the increasing
frequency and intensity of natural hazard events, and ultimately to
incentivize the behaviors and best practices that will be required to
both mitigate the worst impacts and adapt to changing weather patterns.
We do this because Zurich's mission is to protect individuals,
businesses and communities, and because we believe it's the right thing
to do. Furthermore, from an industry perspective, we do this because
the impact of extreme weather events is escalating, and without
enhancing resiliency and mitigation measures many assets will simply
become uninsurable.
As an insurer of physical property and business continuity, we are
tasked with providing economic resilience in the form of an insurance
policy. Economic resilience is inclusive of three primary attributes:
the ability to recover quickly from a shock, the ability to withstand a
shock, and the ability to avoid the shock altogether. When an event
does occur--such as a flood, fire or wind damage--it is best for both
the owner and the insurer to minimize the time it takes to recover. And
we know the recovery time will be less if the insured asset is able to
better withstand the detrimental effects of the event or, simply put,
is more resilient. This scenario is easier shown in the graph to the
right:
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As indicated in the graph, the value of a physical asset--perhaps a
home, factory or office building--loses some value as an impact of the
event. Bringing the value of that asset back to its base worth is the
role of insurance. While the loss of the physical asset is clearly a
significant cost, the time it takes for recovery can be just as costly,
especially to the asset owner. Where we aim to be as an industry is in
the smallest triangle above and bounded by the red lines, which means
an insured can get back to their normal operations as quickly and
efficiently as possible. This means the impact was minimalized and the
speed to recovery maximized. And this will only occur when a structure
or asset is built to a correct and current resiliency standard.
The property & casualty industry has a tradition of being at the
forefront of disaster mitigation, which is why we are in a unique
position to provide comment on resiliency and mitigation. A useful
analogy is the development of fire codes in the late 1800's. During
this period, several historic fires consumed vast areas of our largest
cities, including New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Recognizing
that the ``new normal'' of tightly packed, dense construction greatly
elevated fire hazard, the insurance industry sounded the alarm for
adding sprinklers, fire breaks in construction, and other mitigation
techniques as a necessity to maintaining community continuity. Further,
the industry was forced to send risk-based price signals, which is a
technical way of saying insurance will be prohibitively expensive or
simply unavailable in some cases if you do not adapt to these
practices. Given the trends that are occurring in the frequency and
severity of weather events, we are again sounding the alarm. Investing
in mitigation measures, including resilient infrastructure, nature-
based solutions, and low-carbon technologies, is required if society is
to continue to operate with the continuity and resiliency that is
expected.
What is encouraging is that these changes require minimal
investment in comparison to the benefits received. Current data
suggests that the extra cost of building resilience into infrastructure
systems is only `` . . . 3 percent of overall investment needs.'' \6\
However, when taking into account both the capital costs and operating
costs of the asset, in most cases the Total Lifecycle Cost will be
lower in a hardened, resilient structure. And the savings are even more
significant if the structure is impacted by weather. In our own post-
event studies conducted after significant flood, drought and wildfire
events, our analysis shows that for every $1 spent on resiliency up
front resulted in $5 savings post-disaster. Like the integration of
fire safety in modern construction--the necessity of which is
unquestioned today--so should be inclusion of resiliency in building
and infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Hallegatte, Stephane, Jun Rentschler, and Julie Rozenberg.
2019. Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity. Sustainable
Infrastructure Series. Washington, DC: World Bank pg.xiii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I noted previously, insurers play a critical role in assisting
communities, individuals, and businesses recover when catastrophe
strikes. Importantly, the industry also plays a vital role in improving
community preparedness and risk management before the disaster hits. In
furtherance of this mission, Zurich has undertaken a series of
initiatives to apply the analytics of insurance to a much broader set
of stakeholders. Our goal with is to demonstrate the effectiveness of
investing in pre-event resilience and shift funding from recovery to
resilience.
In 2013 Zurich launched its Global Flood Resilience Alliance, a
multi-sector partnership focusing on finding practical ways to help
communities strengthen their resilience to floods. In 2018, we extended
and expanded the program with the goal to increase third-party
investments dedicated to pre-event resilience by $1 billion. We seek to
do this by rolling out best-practice community programs that
demonstrate the value of resilience-building and advocating for more
investment in resilience with authorities and public and private
funders.
Another approach we take is to share our knowledge about resilience
through the publication of our Post-Event Review Capabilities, or
PERCs. To date, we have completed 16 PERCS globally. In the United
States, we have conducted four (4) such reports covering flooding
events in North Carolina,\7\ South Carolina,\8\ and Houston,\9\ and
wildfires in California \10\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ hurricane-florence-building-resilience-for-the-new-normal.pdf
(zurichna.com)
\8\ https://www.zurichna.com/-/media/project/zwp/zna/docs/kh/
climate-resilience/perc-sc-
report.pdf?la=en&rev=08690b6e85b2401ea050ceddfc21c658
\9\ https://www.zurichna.com/-/media/project/zwp/zna/docs/kh/
weather/perc_harvey_final.pdf
?la=en&rev=e653cf8b7970497eac14abb7b32633fa
\10\ california-wildfire-report.pdf (zurichna.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zurich's PERC analyses of global disasters demonstrates that:
Disaster risk management is playing catch-up to an
increasingly larger exposure to natural hazards.
Globally, spending on climate-related response is far
greater than investment in pre-emptive risk reduction strategies.
Where money is invested on weather-related prevention, it
typically goes to protecting physical structures rather than more cost-
effective risk management such as environmental planning.
Infrastructure protection already in place--levees, for
example--can produce a false sense of security.
Few incentives exist to encourage ``building back
better'' and including resilience into the rebuilding process.
The neediest in society are often neglected before and
after disasters, and sometimes are still recovering from one event when
the next one strikes.
From our perspective, prevention and resilience-building are not
just about humanitarianism, they are about more effective use of scarce
funds. As noted previously, our research on the cost-benefit analysis
from dozens of specific flood resilience programs shows that investing
in resilience not only reduces suffering, it also is responsible
budgeting.
I would like to further explain the statement I made earlier in
this testimony regarding interconnected risk. This is a fundamental
concept in risk management, which is directly applicable when managing
physical risks as we have been discussing. We know there are direct
pathways that influence outcomes, so when considering resiliency, we
need to consider the entire built environment. For example, if we
provide business interruption insurance for a casino operating on the
Mississippi coast built with hardened, resilient components, we need to
also consider the supporting infrastructure that can have a direct
impact to that insured. It does no good to have a resilient building
that is fully capable of operating after a major weather impact, but
the roadways leading to the facility are damaged and impassable. This
is just one example of why it is fundamental to consider the supporting
infrastructure when building a complete, resilient environment. Lastly,
the urgency in addressing these issues should be considered immediate.
Just two weeks ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
published their 2021 America's Infrastructure Scorecard that gave the
U.S. infrastructure an overall grade of C-, which sadly is an
improvement from the previous score of D+. Simply put, we are at a
crossroads with regards to aging structures and, combined with the
significant increase in severe weather events, we can no longer afford
to deploy temporary or band-aid fixes. And without proper resiliency
standards as an integral part of all vertical and horizontal
construction, we will simply be in the same situation we are today:
facing increased perils without proper preparedness--and all at a
significant cost.
In closing, let me reinforce that the insurance sector has a
fundamental role to play in helping society prepare for and address the
costs associated with severe weather events. We are proud of the
leadership our sector is taking in driving awareness and action on this
critical issue. Zurich is dedicated to continuing to play a leadership
role in driving global sustainability, and we invite and encourage
everyone to join us in this essential effort.
Thank you.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Harper.
Mr. Fowke.
Mr. Fowke. Thank you.
Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, members of the
committee, I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of
the National Association of Home Builders.
I would like to discuss the importance of housing
affordability, the role that modern building codes play in
reducing damage from natural disasters, and the need for
mitigation policies and programs to improve the resiliency of
the existing housing stock. I also want to focus on suggested
financing mechanisms and other incentives to spur investment of
production of homes that are both resilient and affordable.
My name is Chuck Fowke. I am the National Association of
Home Builders chairman of the board, and I am a custom
homebuilder in the Tampa Bay area. I have served on the city of
Tampa and the State of Florida Hurricane Codes Committees,
which gave me a firsthand look at what catastrophic disasters
can do to communities.
The unusual number of significant disasters over the past
several years has been sobering, igniting a nationwide dialogue
about risk, resiliency, and mitigation. NAHB has been actively
engaged in these discussions, and we have been a long-time
leader in the drive to make homes more resilient.
To do so, we have repeatedly demonstrated commitment to
sound Federal disaster and flood plain management policies and
cost-effective, market-driven resiliency solutions that
maintain housing affordability, while balancing the needs of
growing communities.
Housing affordability is a real concern for many consumers.
It is at a 10-year low for single family market. Almost one-
third of the Nation's households pay more than 30 percent of
their income for housing. NAHB estimates that if the median
U.S. new home price goes up by $1,000, more than 150,000
American households would be priced out, and no longer able to
afford the American dream.
Recognizing this crisis, Congress must factor in housing
affordability when looking at solutions to build more resilient
communities. Numerous proposals from legislators and
stakeholders have suggested that mandates and more stringent
building codes, such as the use of the latest published codes,
are the answers to improving residential resiliency. We
strongly disagree. Many of the code provisions are too
prescriptive, too costly, and would do very little to improve
resilience. That is because homes built to modern post-2000
building codes are resilient and making significant updates are
unnecessary.
Evidence from FEMA and others support the fact and
demonstrate that modern building codes have been very effective
in preventing the destruction of homes due to various storms,
fires, and earthquakes. For example, after the 2018 hurricane
in Mexico Beach, Florida, studies showed that homes built post-
2000 remained standing while older homes did not.
It is imperative that Congress recognize the importance of
defining the latest published building code as one of the two
most recently published editions of codes. This definition is
essential, as it provides States with the flexibility they need
to follow their own code adoption, implementation, and
enforcement processes, while remaining eligible for Federal
funds and other assistance.
It is also important for State and local governments to be
able to tailor building codes and amend them as necessary to
fit the needs of their communities and protect their citizens.
Modern codes are intended to be flexible. What is best for
Nevada is not best for Florida.
Another important factor in the resiliency discussion is
the role of existing housing stock. Ninety-eight million homes
out of the Nation's 124 million homes were built before 2000.
This older housing stock was not subject to the modern building
codes that are now in effect.
It is imperative that Congress focus on improving the older
homes, structures, and infrastructures that are less resilient
to natural disasters. Federal incentives, tax credits, grants,
and other assisted programs, would go a long way to facilitate
and help fund the upgrades needed to ensure our homes and
communities are ready for the future. These practical solutions
will also ensure that working families have access to safe,
decent, and affordable housing.
In conclusion, we urge Congress to take a practical
approach when seeking to mitigate the effects of future natural
disasters. Relying on existing building codes, heeding the
expertise of State and local governments, focusing on improving
existing housing stock, and providing incentives is the best
way to encourage greater resiliency in the Nation's housing
stock. This will also preserve housing affordability for new
and existing homes.
Thank you for the opportunity today to testify before you.
[Mr. Fowke's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John C. Fowke, Chairman, National Association of
Home Builders
Chairwoman Titus and Ranking Member Webster, I am pleased to appear
before you today on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) to share our experience and views regarding building resilience
and mitigation. My name is Chuck Fowke, and I am NAHB's Chairman of the
Board. I am also the founder and president of Homes by John C. Fowke
Inc., and have built hundreds of homes throughout the Tampa Bay area.
In addition to being a custom home builder, I have served on the City
of Tampa and State of Florida Hurricane Codes Committees. In my
capacity on those committees, I have had a firsthand look at what
catastrophic disasters can do to homes and communities and how
investing in mitigation can alleviate some of the challenges.
NAHB represents more than 140,000 members who are involved in land
development and building single-family and multifamily housing,
remodeling and other aspects of residential and light commercial
construction. NAHB's members construct approximately 80 percent of all
new housing built in the United States each year. NAHB's mission is to
enhance the climate for housing and the building industry, including
providing and expanding opportunities for all people to have access to
safe, decent and affordable homes.
This testimony will focus on the following key points:
Maintaining housing affordability must be the cornerstone
to any efforts to create cleaner and stronger homes.
Modern building codes (e.g., post-2000) are resilient.
State and local governments must retain authority over
their land use and code adoption processes.
Modernizing the existing housing stock is crucial.
Incentive programs and other funding mechanisms must be
provided to offset the increased costs for above-code and mitigation
activities.
The unusual number of significant natural disasters over the past
several years has been sobering. At the same time, they have ignited a
nationwide dialogue about risk, resiliency and mitigation. NAHB has
been actively engaged in these discussions for many years and we have
taken a leadership role in improving the resiliency and performance of
new and existing homes. In fact, NAHB and its members have a long
history of supporting, developing and participating in many state and
local initiatives, as well as various federal activities aimed and
reducing disaster losses and improving resiliency. We have repeatedly
demonstrated our commitment to working with all levels of government to
promote and implement sound disaster and floodplain management policies
and improve the resiliency of the homes we build and the communities we
serve. In doing so, we take pride in helping to develop cost-effective,
market-driven solutions that maintain housing affordability while
balancing the needs of growing communities with the need for reasonable
protection of life and property.
Today, I would like to discuss the importance of housing
affordability, the role modern building codes play in reducing damage
from natural disasters, the need for mitigation policies and programs
to improve the resiliency of the existing housing stock, and suggested
financing mechanisms and other initiatives to spur investment in the
production of homes that are both resilient and affordable.
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability continues to be a concern for households
across the nation. Many people cannot afford to purchase a new home or
install energy efficient or resilient features in an existing home--and
that's before Congress considers any new policies aimed at tackling
climate change. These challenges are real and we are hopeful that this
Subcommittee will refrain from enacting any policies that will
exacerbate these existing realities.
According to NAHB research conducted earlier this year, housing
affordability in the single-family market remains near a 10-year low.
Only 58.3 percent of new and existing homes sold in the last quarter of
2020 were affordable to families earning the U.S. median income of
$72,900, while these same families could only afford about 40 percent
of the new homes.\1\ \2\ At lower income levels, the reality is even
starker. Based on conventional assumptions and underwriting standards,
the minimum income required to purchase a $100,000 home is $22,505. In
2021, about 21.1 million households in the U.S. are estimated to have
incomes below that threshold and, therefore, cannot afford a $100,000
home. To make matters worse, in many areas of the country, homes priced
below $100,000 simply don't exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Quint, Rose, Housing Affordability Holds Steady; Challenges
Loom, National Association of Home Builders, February 8, 2021, accessed
at https://eyeonhousing.org/2021/02/housing-affordability-holds-steady-
challenges-loom/ on March 15, 2021.
\2\ Zhao, Na, Ph.D., NAHB Priced-Out Estimates for 2021, National
Association of Home Builders, February 2021, accessed at https://
www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/news-and-economics/docs/housing-economics-
plus/special-studies/2021/special-study-nahb-priced-out-estimates-for-
2021-february-2021.pdf?_ga=2.166628414.1684294592.1615476404-
1214384301.1615476404 on March 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, owning or renting a suitable home is increasingly out of
financial reach for many households. In fact, almost a third of the
nation's households are cost burdened and pay more than 30 percent of
their income for housing. At the same time, net new households are
being formed faster than new single-family and multifamily homes are
coming online to accommodate them, so there is both a surge in need and
not nearly enough supply.
The nation continues to experience a housing shortage and an
affordability crisis. Despite these real challenges, many continue to
suggest that home builders should build structures that are more
resilient and/or efficient in an effort to respond to and stem the
impacts of climate change, meet carbon emissions limits or further
environmental goals. Oftentimes, such additional requirements are
unnecessary because many new homes outperform existing ones and these
new mandates will only serve to exacerbate the current housing
affordability crisis.
For example, building costs are estimated to increase between
$4,000 and $16,000 due to the changes from the 2009 to the 2015
Residential Building Code \3\ and the additional cost of raising the
height of the foundation for a new 2000-square-foot home was estimated
in 2017 to range from $890-$4,470 per foot of elevation.\4\ Obviously,
those costs are passed along to the consumer and can have a significant
impact on the pool of eligible buyers. Indeed, NAHB estimates that in
2021, a $1,000 increase in the median new home price would price
153,967 U.S. households out of the market.\5\ But, as shown, complying
with many code changes or undertaking building retrofit activities can
be significantly more costly than $1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Home Innovation Research Labs. (2014, December). Estimated
Costs of 2015 IRC Codes. NAHB. https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/
advocacy/docs/top-priorities/codes/code-adoption/irc-2015-cost-
study.pdf
\4\ See Association of State Floodplain Managers, The Costs &
Benefits of Building Higher, 2018, accessed at https://s3-us-west-
2.amazonaws.com/asfpm-library/General/
Benefits_Cost_Freeboard_ASFPM_2018.pdf on March 15, 2021. While it is
not clear how these estimates were derived, many NAHB members have
reported costs that are significantly greater than those indicated in
this publication.
\5\ Zhao, Na, Ph.D., NAHB Priced-Out Estimates for 2021, National
Association of Home Builders, February 2021, accessed at (https://
www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/news-and-economics/docs/housing-economics-
plus/special-studies/2021/special-study-nahb-priced-out-estimates-for-
2021-february-2021.pdf?_ga=2.166628414.1684294592.1615476404-
1214384301.1615476404) on March 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stricter construction standards and mitigation come with a price
tag. Regardless of the level of benefit, some entity has to provide the
upfront funding required to conduct the construction or mitigation
activities or they will not occur. This is where the challenge lies for
most consumers and homeowners. Just because more stringent codes or
pre-disaster mitigation may provide a benefit doesn't mean it can or
will be implemented. While the federal government has historically made
funding available for these types of activities, most of the programs
have been consistently oversubscribed and target the highest risk
structures or the lowest income properties, which make it unlikely that
they will be able to fully serve the array of mitigation needs
associated with existing housing. New sources, avenues, and incentives
must be found if we are to make meaningful progress on resiliency while
maintaining housing affordability.
Building Codes
It is clear that the unusual number of significant natural
disasters occurring over the past few years, coupled with ongoing
concerns over the effects of climate change, have increased awareness
of and raised concerns about the resilience of buildings. Although most
states and localities are governed by building regulations that are
designed to protect homes and their occupants from severe weather
events and hazards, some argue that more should be done. NAHB
disagrees. Modern codes have proven to be resilient. More stringent
codes can come at costs that not only curtail homeownership and
significantly hinder housing affordability, but can severely impact
state and local economies because they greatly influence how or if
existing structures and cities are reengineered, rebuilt and/or
remodeled and impact how and where or if new homes and communities are
built. Instead of ratcheting up their stringency, the nation needs to
embrace modern building codes and the positive role they play and focus
on ensuring they are sufficiently flexible to address regional risks
and associated considerations.
Modern Codes are Resilient
Building codes are designed to establish minimum requirements for
public health and safety for commercial and residential structures.
Although they have existed in various forms for decades, building codes
in the United States achieved a milestone in 2000 when the three
regional code organizations were consolidated into the International
Code Council (ICC) and their codes were combined to create the first
set of ``I-Codes'', which were published in 2000. Although there are
other building codes available, the I-Codes are by far the most widely
used model building codes, with some form of the International Building
Code (IBC) adopted in all 50 states and versions of the International
Residential Code (IRC) adopted in 49 states. Like most model building
codes and referenced standards, the I-Codes are modified through a
formal public consensus process every three years. This has resulted in
the publication of a new edition in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018
and 2021.
When the I-Codes were created, a number of major improvements were
immediately made to the traditional building code requirements within
the residential building code to address issues observed after
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the California earthquakes of 1989 and
1994. Although additional improvements have been made since the I-
Codes' debut in 2000, the number of changes incorporated into the newer
editions of the IRC that dramatically impact structural reliability and
occupant life safety within residential structures have greatly
diminished. In other words, the modern building codes (e.g., post-2000)
have proven to be resilient and the need for triannual updates is not
necessary for improved resilience. Homes designed and constructed to
the national model building codes are built to withstand major damage
from disasters and already provide substantial resiliency for many high
seismic, high wind, heavy snow, wildfire and flooding events.
Despite this, a number of recent proposals targeted at making
buildings more resilient are predicated on requiring the use of
``latest published editions'' of certain codes or standards. This is
unnecessary and creates a number of challenges. First, although many
believe that homes built following the ``latest published edition'' of
the building code equate to more resilient homes, that is not
necessarily the case when compared to those built to previous editions
of the IRC. Homes built to modern building codes--defined as any
edition of the IRC--have been shown to be resilient. Evidence from FEMA
and others demonstrate the IRC, throughout its history, has been very
effective in preventing the destruction of homes due to various storms
and earthquakes and significantly reducing damage to wall and roof
coverings.\6\ Further, because many of today's new homes are built
``above code,'' with additional sustainable and high-performance
building features, they are even more durable and resilient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For example, FEMA's Summary Report on Building Performance--
2004 Hurricane Season (FEMA 490, March 2005) indicated that ``no
structural failures were observed to structures designed and
constructed to the wind design requirements of . . . the 2000 IBC/
IRC'', and FEMA's Summary Report on Building Performance from Hurricane
Katrina (FEMA 548, April 2006) stated ``most structural failures
observed . . . appeared to be the result of inadequate design and
construction methods commonly used before IBC 2000 and IRC 2000 were
adopted and enforced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, it is not clear that this definition recognizes and
accommodates the different risks, building technologies and landforms
that occur across the country or specifically allows the model codes to
be amended--a step that is crucial to maintaining the resiliency of the
codes. Third, because each state and local government follows its own
code adoption, implementation, and enforcement processes and has
limited dedicated resources, many are not able to adopt the latest
published codes within expected timeframes. Evaluating and adopting a
new building code is a time consuming and costly undertaking--a multi-
step process that oftentimes requires state legislative as well as
administrative action and that can take years to complete. Given these
realities, mandating the adoption of the ``latest published editions''
creates an unintended disadvantage for many states and localities that,
under other measures, would be considered fairly up to date in
maintaining their codes (e.g., following a standard and predictable
process and timeline).
The successful performance of the IRC over the past 20 years is an
indication of the ``maturing'' of building codes as they have gone
through the iterative process of refinement since 2000. While tweaking
the code to reflect technological advances will continue, it is clear
that major changes aren't as necessary as they used to be. Similarly,
because the codes are nearing a point of diminishing returns in terms
of the cost/benefit ratio, additional updates may not be cost-
effective. Homes can be built to withstand any disaster, but homes
cannot yet consistently be built to withstand any disaster and be
affordable. New homes built to modern codes are safe. New homes built
to modern codes are resilient. There is no need to require more
stringent requirements or the adherence to the latest published edition
of the code--especially if that is interpreted to mean the most recent
version.
Modern Codes Address Local Conditions
State and local governments play a key role in the codes adoption
process and determining the value of and need for certain code
requirements. Because the model codes are meant to be amended, for
decades, state and local governments have been responsible for
evaluating each new edition of the model consensus-based building codes
and determining which provisions are applicable within their borders.
They do so by adding, removing, or revising provisions so that the
codes better fit the construction practices and techniques, geography
and risks, and economic and market conditions within the region. If
they were unable to make these vital changes, state and local
governments would be stuck trying to fit the square peg of national
codes into the round hole that represents local conditions. Equally
problematic, doing so would impose numerous unnecessary requirements on
builders--requirements that translate into higher costs for buyers.
The ability to tailor the codes is a key component in ensuring the
codes are resilient. Some states make few changes to the model codes,
others hand-pick the provisions and/or amend certain requirements, and
others use the model code as a baseline to create their own state-
specific code. In this way, jurisdictions can assess their specific
risks and needs to create the code that best suits their specific
seismic, wind, flood, and/or other conditions. At the same time, they
can avoid imposing mandates (and associated compliance costs) for
provisions that are not applicable or designed to address levels of
risks that are not present in their areas, such as elevation
requirements outside the traditional flood hazard areas, or increased
structural requirements for snow loads in more temperate regions.
Under this rubric, Nevada is free to identify the risks it faces
and adopt the codes that are best suited to its locale, geography and
economic conditions, while North Carolina is able to do the same. In
fact, because the model codes are intended to be tailored, amendments
are made to nearly every code that is adopted at the state or local
level, whether it applies to only the administrative requirements or
major rewrite of the entire document. For example, North Carolina
adopted its 2018 building codes based on the 2015 I-Codes on January 1,
2019 with 38 pages of amendments.\7\ Similarly, Nevada adopts the
building codes at the local level, but collaborates statewide on the
amending process and had 14 pages of amendments on the residential code
alone.\8\ Any federal efforts must not alter this vital underpinning
and must allow and embrace amendments as an important component of
ensuring both the codes' applicability and resiliency, and, in turn,
its affordability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Engineering_and_Codes/Documents/
2018_NCBuilding
Code_amendments/2018_NCBuildingCode_amendments.pdf
\8\ See http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/building/plan-review/
Building%20Codes/2018_IRC_
Amendments.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Codes do not Address Existing Homes
As currently structured, most building codes apply only to new
construction. This means that any effort to increase the stringency or
otherwise focus on the implementation of building codes overburdens new
construction and essentially ignores the performance and resiliency of
the existing housing stock. Such a result is unacceptable.
According the 2019 American Housing Survey, over half (65 million)
of the nation's 124 million homes were built prior to 1980 (98 million
prior to 2000); and therefore, most were not subject to the modern
building codes that are now in effect. Equally problematic, the latest
Census statistics show the number of homes built before 1970 that are
taken out of commission is only about 6 out of every 1,000 being
retired per year. These low rates of replacement mean that the built
environment in the U.S. will change slowly and continue to be dominated
by structures that are at least several decades old. Indeed, optimistic
estimates suggest that if 1.2 million homes were built every year,
after 20 years only 16 percent of the conventional housing stock would
consist of new homes built between now and then. In comparison, 68
percent would still consist of homes built before 1990.\9\ Clearly,
these statistics demonstrate the impact that newer building codes can
have on the built environment is limited because new construction
represents such a small portion of the housing stock. Any effort to
increase those gains would be difficult and costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Emrath, Paul, Ph.D., More New Homes Needed to Replace Older
Stock, National Association of Home Builders, August 2, 2018, accessed
at https://eyeonhousing.org/2019/01/more-homes-needed-to-replace-older-
stock/ on March 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, those who call for the adoption of more stringent and
costly building requirements fail to acknowledge that this would do
very little to provide further protection from natural disasters.
Inappropriately focusing on new construction would create hardships for
state and local governments and would make new housing prohibitively
expensive for hard-working families at a time when the nation is
already suffering through a housing affordability crisis.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
The American housing stock continues to age, especially as
residential construction continues its modest rebound after the Great
Recession. Because recent production has fallen short of even the
levels needed to accommodate the number of net new households, there is
increasing pressure to keep existing homes in service longer--homes
that may not perform as well or be as resilient as newer homes.
Retrofitting these homes represents the biggest opportunity to improve
the resiliency of the nation's housing stock.
Existing Housing Stock Ripe for Retrofit
Older homes are less resilient and energy efficient than new homes.
They were not built to the stringent requirements contained in modern
codes, use (and lose) more energy, and are more susceptible to damage
from natural disasters. Many of the post-disaster investigations
support this conclusion. For example, in FEMA's Mitigation Assessment
Team Report regarding Hurricane Sandy, the summary reads, ``Many of the
low-rise and residential buildings in coastal areas [that had
observable damage] were of older construction that pre-dates the
NFIP.'' \10\ Similarly, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home
Safety stated in its preliminary findings report for Hurricanes Harvey
and Irma that, ``Total destruction from wind occurred to mobile homes,
as well as older site built conventional homes,'' and ``Newer homes
generally performed better than older buildings.'' \11\ Clearly,
upgrading existing buildings and improving their ability to withstand
disaster events must play a key role in any efforts to improve the
nation's overall resiliency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Assessment
Team Report Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York, November 27,
2013, accessed at (https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/
44511/PDF/1/play/) on May 19, 2019.
\11\ Brown-Giammanco, Ph.D., Hurricanes Harvey and Irma--IBHS
Preliminary Findings Report, Insurance Institute for Business & Home
Safety, accessed at (https://ibhs.org/wp-content/uploads/wpmembers/
files/Hurricane-Harvey-Wind-Damage-Investigation_IBHS.pdf) on May 19,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible and Cost-Effective Options Critical
As policymakers seek to mitigate the effects of future natural
disasters, they need to create an array of opportunities to facilitate
upgrades and improvements to the older homes, structures and
infrastructure that are less resilient to natural disasters because
they were built when there were no national model codes in existence or
constructed following codes that are now outdated. Modernizing existing
structures and properties to improve their resiliency can take many
forms--ranging from better sealing roof penetrations or installing
hurricane shutters to elevating the structure or improving the site's
stormwater management. Clearly, mitigation will be largely dependent on
property location and condition, type of hazard and level of risk,
geographic conditions, economic levels, community and individual
resources and other factors. Like most efforts, however, there is no
one solution that can address the full range of issues and needs
associated with improving resiliency. Therefore, flexibility in program
design, application and implementation is vital. Any federal assistance
must also be broadly applicable over geographic and economic spectrums
at both the community and individual levels. While some will need
financial assistance, others may benefit from technical expertise or
innovation.
At the individual home level, recognizing many households do not
have the interest or means to conduct larger scale renovation projects,
NAHB, in concert with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the,
International Code Council, and the Insurance Institute for Business &
Home Safety, is developing a series of Tech Notes that describe
different types of retrofit techniques that can be used to increase the
resiliency of existing buildings. Importantly, these how-to fact sheets
focus on strategies that require minimal costs (typically less than
$1,000 for a typical home), but have a significant impact on reducing
damage.
The first six topics that have been completed include sealed roof
decks, attachment of roof coverings, flashing and sealing of roof
penetrations, use of hurricane shutters, use of impact resistant doors
and methods of preventing ice dams. It is hoped that these new
resources will help homeowners understand their options, recognize that
certain mitigation options can be cost-effective, and compel them to
take action. NAHB continues to demonstrate its commitment to increase
the performance of homes through the development of these resources and
the ongoing promotion of voluntary participation in green building
programs.
We strongly urge Congress to recognize and promote voluntary,
market-driven, and viable green building, high performance and
resiliency initiatives for both new and existing homes. Unlike
mandates, these programs can promote lower total ownership costs
through insurance and utility savings as well as provide the
flexibility builders need to construct homes that are recognized as
being cost-effective, affordable and appropriate to a home's geographic
location.
Incentives/Funding Mechanisms
Incentive programs that offset the increased costs for above-code
and mitigation activities are an important tool to reduce the barriers
that many resiliency opportunities pose and encourage more homeowners
to invest in home modernization. For example, due to the high initial
costs associated with investing in certain resiliency and mitigation
efforts, many homeowners are unable to finance desired or necessary
upgrades and, without assistance, would likely forego the improvements.
Mitigation funding and/or incentives that are available at the federal
and state levels, as well as those that could be offered through the
real estate valuation and transaction processes, can address this
issue, produce results and have proven to be attractive alternatives to
mandates.
Federal Incentives
Congress has taken a number of steps over the years to alleviate
the challenges associated with funding retrofits--most prominently
through federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation and tax incentives.
NAHB asserts that continuing and expanding these types of programs is
necessary in order to realize measurable change in the resiliency of
the housing stock. Indeed, coming up with what can be significant up-
front costs or increased down payments needed to finance improved
resiliency is often the most difficult part of new or existing home
upgrades.
Tax incentives are another proven way to realize results and, as
they have been effective at advancing energy efficiency improvements,
perhaps could be used as a model for resiliency. Sections 25C for
qualified improvements in existing homes (building components), 45L for
new homes and 179D for commercial buildings have permeated the market
and assisted many families and building owners to invest in efficiency.
Continuing and expanding programs like these, which have demonstrable
results, will compel more homeowners to take positive actions.
State Incentives
States can also play a role in enticing positive behavior. One
alternative that has been used in several states is providing insurance
discounts to homeowners who conduct specific activities. In Texas, the
state's hurricane insurance pool, the Texas Windstorm Insurance
Association, offers premium discounts of 19 percent to 33 percent for
building code compliance. In Rhode Island, insurers are required to
waive the hurricane deductible for insured homeowners who voluntarily
implement mitigation measures that are specified in the insurance
regulation. In Alabama, tax credits of up to $3,000 are available for
retrofitting a taxpayer's legal residence to make it more resistant to
hurricanes, tornadoes, other catastrophic windstorm events, or rising
floodwaters.
In addition, the Alabama State Legislature established the
Strengthen Alabama Homes Act in 2011 to provide grants to qualified
homeowners to retrofit their homes to reduce property damage caused by
hurricanes or other catastrophic windstorm events. Clearly, these state
programs have proven to be popular, as they provide value through loss
reduction, yet enable and facilitate broader participation through
reduced costs. The recognition and expansion of programs like these is
one way to engage participation while offsetting the hefty costs
associated with upgrades.
Other Incentives
There are a number of other opportunities to facilitate,
incentivize, and offset the costs of voluntary above-code construction
and/or pre-disaster mitigation that could be achieved through public-
private partnerships and other collaboration. These options include
modifications to property valuation and financing protocols; loans,
grants and other funding programs; and insurance premium reductions
within the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), among others.
Under current practice, in most instances, mortgage companies,
appraisers, assessors and real estate professionals do not consider the
costs or benefits associated with the various resiliency upgrades. This
creates a disincentive to take proactive steps to reduce a home's
exposure, as those expenditures are not necessarily considered to be
valuable amenities. If the improvements are not included in the
appraisal or appraised value of the structure, not only is the buyer
uninformed about the home's qualities, his or her willingness to pay
more can be significantly diminished.
By recognizing and valuating the upgrades, appraisers can
consistently give weight to these improvements in their valuations,
lenders may reconsider qualifying loan ratios, realtors can promote
their benefits, and homeowners would get assurances that the
investments they have made will retain value and be recognized in
resale. Homes will also get the upgrades needed to better weather storm
events, thereby reducing future damage, insurance outlays and homeowner
displacement.
Other opportunities to facilitate, incentivize, and offset the
costs of voluntary above-code construction and/or pre-disaster
mitigation include tax incentives, grants, the creation of a
weatherization assistance-like program for resiliency, and/or financing
programs that would allow the costs of retrofits to be added to a
mortgage.
Congress is encouraged to consider a full range of federal
incentive and funding opportunities, as well as ways to promote and
facilitate state-level and private efforts to optimize the resiliency
of new and existing homes. Clearly, overcoming the significant hurdles
of how to finance upgrades and entice homeowners to take action will be
a key to the success of any effort to increase investment in resilience
and mitigation.
Moving Forward
Sound building codes are already in place in most communities and
they are doing their job. NAHB is supportive of voluntary and
incentive-based efforts to improve the nation's resilience, but remains
concerned with how any expansion of federal authority over state and
local governments' ability to adopt location-appropriate building codes
or take other steps may impact where and how homes are built or
severely constrain the production of affordable housing. NAHB is also
troubled by the inappropriate focus the adoption of the most recent
versions of codes places on new construction at the expense of the
existing housing stock and strongly believes that expanding mitigation
opportunities and targeting upgrades to existing structures could help
to better manage and more evenly reduce the risks.
We strongly urge this Subcommittee through its oversight role to
focus any efforts related to housing on cost-effective, market driven
solutions that encourage greater resiliency in the nation's housing
stock while preserving housing affordability for both new and existing
homes. Further, given our members' knowledge and experience building
homes and communities--activities that place them on the front lines in
terms of designing, planning and building to reduce risks and minimize
future losses, we stand ready to assist and help deliver positive
results and help you reach your goals.
Conclusion
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify today and share NAHB's views. The nation's home builders have
long supported the adoption and implementation of building codes as a
way to ensure the homes we build are solid and safe. In doing so, what
has become clear is that with each new home we build, we are
transforming our communities into resilient cities of the future.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. And I apologize, it is Mr.
Fowke, not Mr. ``Folk.'' So thank you for being with us.
Mr. Fowke. That is OK.
Ms. Titus. I now ask unanimous consent that members not on
the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would now like to recognize members of the committee for
questions. Each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes of
questions, and I will start by recognizing Chairman DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity to go first.
Just to any members of the panel, we are looking at major
investments in water infrastructure, both wastewater and
drinking water, in the infrastructure package upcoming in the
next couple of months.
I found in my district that plastic melts in severe fires
and, obviously, then you have issues with seismic that could
relate to other substances.
How are we going to deal with this? I think maybe the last
witness was talking about localities. I guess you would assess
what your risks are, what your biggest concern is and then try
and attempt to rebuild the infrastructure in a way that deals
with that?
Mr. Wright. I guess, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would tell
you that that is exactly the right case. You have got to deal--
particularly on this infrastructure side, but on the housing
stock as well, specifically with the risk as it exists in that
community. So, you think about how things tie together. You
think about the pipes, but also think about water
infrastructure, and whether or not the infrastructure itself
can withstand a major storm, a major storm surge event, or a
fire that approaches it. Things like a flood risk management
standard is so imperative because if water comes up and over
into a wastewater treatment plant, it shuts down.
Mr. DeFazio. All right.
Ms. Smith. I would add, Mr. Chairman, that the important
thing is also to look at the risk as it will exist in the
future. You don't want to have to rebuy a new infrastructure.
You don't want to have to rebuild housing again. So you want to
look, to the extent that you can, where is going to be the
saltwater intrusion that could affect the placement of new
water supplies, where should the pumps be placed, all sorts of
things, the wastewater facilities, how can you keep the
electricity running when you are flooded. So to look at future
risk as well as current.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
And then, I guess, probably to Mr. Fowke, or others can
answer, but you raised concerns about the potential for a
$1,000 increase in cost; yet, I was just talking to Mr.
Garamendi, who had to leave, and he was the insurance
commissioner for a number of years in California, and I was
talking about how I had seen a photo after a chaparral fire of
a neighborhood where everything was toast, except for one
house, and that house was built with concrete siding, a tile
roof, and metal shutters, and block attic vents, and it was
still standing. But I am willing to bet that current building
codes don't require that, and it probably cost a lot more than
$1,000 to get to that point.
So do you think like with building in chaparral areas and
other things as L.A. expands, that the modern building code
will take care of that, which would be probably asphalt roof,
certainly wouldn't include shutters and other things.
Mr. Fowke. Well, I believe that codes should be flexible
where they can change in nature to where issues take place
throughout different regions of the country. To make houses to
where they meet and exceed some of the things that you are
mentioning here, if they are not affordable, I don't think the
consumer will ever have the opportunity to enjoy or appreciate
the savings or the use of that facility.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, the point being, if someone is doing a
major new development, and they are building it in such a way
that in the chaparral area, it is likely to burn down, that is
going to impose considerable costs, obviously, on the
individuals, and on the insurance and potentially on Stafford.
So there are kind of front-end costs, back-end costs on these
things, and I think there has to be a balance, and it should
be, it seems to me, dictated by the region and the risk, and
not, say, well, we will get a uniform national building code
and houses are bolted down now, they don't fly off the
foundation, blah, blah, blah, we are taking care of these
things. I think it needs to be more regionalized and localized.
So insurance would like to, or perhaps, someone else
respond to that?
Mr. Harper. Sure. Thank you for the question.
I would echo your comments that, you know, there is a
national building code, and there is a need for regional codes
as well. Natural disasters, there is uniqueness to different
geographical areas. And when you use the example of wildfire,
that is one of those where I think it is almost a combination
of what can you do from a regional perspective with codes, and
then what can you do, also, from a larger built environment
perspective? How can we use public lands and parks to create
buffer zones? How can zoning be used to reduce exposures by
mandating clustering of the built environment, creating
defensible space, and ensuring transportation networks are
interconnected?
So codes can be used to influence building styles, building
materials, and landscapes. So I think there are several tools
in the toolbox, but I would agree that there are very unique
regional components to what we are trying to do here. But I
think we also have to look at all of our possible tools that we
have, including the built environment in which that structure
is sitting.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. I would say that, first of all, Mr. Fowke, you
raised some important issues on affordability in your
testimony. We can push stronger building codes. However, if
those building codes cost too much money, then the homeowners
can't afford them and we haven't improved mitigation. So where
is the real balance between those two? I mean, there has to be
a balance, and I know in Florida there are places where we
balance that out. What do you think?
Mr. Fowke. Well, Ranking Member Webster, I think Florida is
a perfect example of balance. After Hurricane Andrew, I was
able to witness firsthand the destruction that took place. It
was devastating. It was almost hard to imagine the damage that
took place.
The knee-jerk reaction was to build homes that were
bulletproof and could withstand any kind of storm. But we
learned very quickly the affordability was out the window then.
A consumer cannot afford the home. It was very unattractive.
And, so, we looked for balance, and we worked real hard in
research and development after Hurricane Andrew.
And Mexico Beach, Florida, the last hurricane in 2018, was
a great example where older homes did not stand. The newer
homes that were built post-2000 stood up against the storm, and
it was a success story.
We learned a lot about Hurricane Andrew, and the research
that took place there and the practices that have happened
afterwards have been a success story in Florida.
But, like I said earlier as well, what we do in Florida is
not necessarily what they need to do in Nevada, and, therefore,
the codes need to be flexible throughout the country in
different regions. One size doesn't fit all.
Mr. Webster. How can we support homeowners with existing
homes in improving their resiliency at their properties?
Mr. Fowke. Well, if funding was available for existing
homes, the commerce is out there where companies will come in
and bring your house up to current codes. Things that we
learned that were very simple were application of windows,
strapping of the trusses on the building, and installation and
application of the exterior doors and garage doors. Some of
these items here that I just mentioned would be very cost
effective and add value to the home, and also add safety to the
homeowner.
Mr. Webster. So can you talk about your work in Florida for
which you were typically used as a model for building codes and
mitigation, and how the flexibility to address affordability
can be worked into mitigation activities and planning?
Mr. Fowke. Well, we looked at, first, the failure of the
homes in Hurricane Andrew, when Hurricane Andrew happened, and
from there, we looked at solutions, and we learned quickly that
if the roof trusses were to lift, the exterior wall would
collapse; therefore, the entire structure would collapse. So we
started out with strapping down the trusses, putting more rebar
in concrete in the exterior walls and beefing up the exterior
walls.
In velocity zones, we made sure that we had the velocity
tight windows, impact windows. And, in the installation of
windows throughout the State, we used more stringent
application for installing the windows so that they weren't
easily removed from high winds.
But another thing in Florida, Ranking Member Webster, that
we need to pay attention to--and it is not a coastal problem,
but the flood insurance issue is set to expire in September,
and we continue to put a Band-Aid on that.
And, so, I would say to this committee today, too--and I
sat on a roundtable discussion with Congressman Charlie Crist a
few years ago, and we began to look for solutions to the flood
insurance issue.
And, so, I think--hand-in-hand, I think the insurance
members on this call today will also agree with me that we need
to quit putting a Band-Aid on flood insurance. And I am not
saying that because I am from Florida, because floods are not a
coastal issue.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
I would like to ask a couple of questions myself. This can
go to anybody on the panel. We are trying to be the best
stewards of taxpayer money, and we have reacted to a lot of
this weather that you have all mentioned in creating a number
of disaster programs. You have got some in HUD. You have got
some in defense, in transportation, DOE, EPA, just all these
different programs.
I wonder if you could talk to how we can make them more
accountable, how they can be more cost effective, and how they
can be more coordinated so you don't just keep creating layers
of bureaucracy and difficulty for people who need to apply for
these funds that come from different sources.
Mr. Strickland. I would like to speak on behalf of the
national emergency managers to that point, because that is an
issue that we really are constantly up against. It is the
numerous Federal programs, both before, during, and after a
disaster.
And, if there could be a way, at the Federal Government
level, to centralize this coordination--and, to us, it would
really be FEMA needs to be well aware of all of the programs
that are available within the Federal Government, and to be
able to coordinate with the States those programs and how they
may be most effective per what that particular State's issue
and risk vulnerabilities might be.
That, to us, would be of great, great assistance.
Thank you.
Ms. Smith. Madam Chair, if I could add, perhaps, somewhat
of a friendly amendment to Mr. Strickland's approach, that we
see that this is an issue, and it is important to try to
harmonize and allow the various programs to work together, to
have more flexibility on trying to match dollars from NRCS at
USDA, with FEMA dollars, for buyout, or something of that sort.
I think allowing for projects that have co-benefits will be
helpful.
Mr. Wright. Taking it one step further, there was a
National Mitigation Framework developed 7 years ago, and it has
been revised once. And, in that, they created a mitigation
framework leadership group. It has all of the Federal agencies
on that group. My prior role at FEMA, I got to lead that group.
It has the right people at the table. It had the right
conversations. But, to be honest with you, Madam Chair, there
is not a mandate legally. There is not a mandate from Congress
that tells those individual programs with different departments
in different committees of jurisdiction to make it simpler, to
bring those efficiencies there.
And, so, it is done far too ad hoc. Far too much of it is
informal, because everyone is following their own organic act,
their own legal framework.
And, to Mr. Strickland's point, it just becomes
unreasonable by the time you are trying to implement it on the
ground.
Ms. Titus. Sometimes you get into jurisdictional battles
among the agencies as well. Nobody wants to----
Mr. Wright. Absolutely.
Ms. Titus [continuing]. Give up any turf or any budget.
Mr. Wright. This is true.
Ms. Titus. Sounds like from all of you that this might be
something that we need to look at more carefully, and we will
welcome your wise counsel as we do that.
One other question. We saw in FEMA's National Advisory
Committee report that underserved communities stay underserved.
They usually don't get the benefits of some of these programs.
I wonder if you all might comment on how we could better
serve those communities, get the information to them, get the
resources to them, supplement their ability to apply for
grants. Any suggestions?
Mr. Wright. I think twofold. One of them is there is a need
to have the capabilities on the ground to develop the
applications. I think the bigger issue is the ability to bring
the match.
In almost every State, the locality has to bring that 25-
percent match, which is required in all of these--at least the
FEMA grant programs that we are referencing here today. And
underserved communities don't have that. And that was my point
earlier. While there were $3.6 billion worth of applications
that came in from BRIC, I wonder how many of those are coming
from underserved communities. How many of them really have
that?
So, I am always reticent to say that we should change cost
shares all the way to 100 percent, but I do think it is
appropriate to look at that cost share and potentially make
adjustments, specifically when underserved communities will
increase their resilience.
Ms. Titus. Well, we did have that included in the rescue
package, and so it is a possibility. We might want to give--
maybe look at that and shape it in such a way that it would be
limited. Good suggestion.
Excuse me, Ms.--sorry----
Ms. Smith. I would just suggest, Madam Chair, that an
example from the State of Florida might be helpful where they
provide different amounts for different localities' share,
depending on what kind of efforts have been undertaken, and,
perhaps, you could do that with a balancing sliding scale based
on level of need.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Guest?
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Harper, in your testimony, you cite my State of
Mississippi as an example that you use on page 5. You say there
on page 5--it says: ``When considering resiliency, we need to
consider the entire built environment. For example, if we
provide business interruption insurance for a casino operating
on the Mississippi coast built with hardened, resilient
components, we need to also consider the supporting
infrastructure that can have a direct exact impact to that
insured. It does no good to have a resilient building that is
fully capable of operating after a major weather impact, but
the roadways leading to the facility are damaged and
impassable. This is just one example of why it is fundamental
to consider the supporting infrastructure when building a
complete, resilient environment.''
Mr. Harper, can you speak on the importance of investing in
resilient infrastructure as a public good, which would then
support private investment? And do you believe that such
investment would then incentivize private investment in
resilient structures in new construction in those areas?
Mr. Harper. Yes, sir. You know, speaking to the importance
of infrastructure is also talking about the importance of
response and recovery. We need to invest in infrastructure
systems that can withstand disaster in order to allow emergency
responders--at minimum, allow emergency responders in and to
allow recovery to begin as soon as possible, opening up
businesses within days, and not weeks.
Further, with more detail provided in my written testimony,
as you stated, infrastructure is critical to economic
resilience, which is really two parts: One is lessening the
impact of the events, and two is the speed to the time of
recovery to normal. And, as an insurance provider, that is
really our role, is to try to make people whole and make people
businesses once again, and that is two-part.
And that is why it is so critical right now, when you do
look at an asset, to consider all parts of resiliency, which
infrastructure is a critical part of that.
With regards to the second part of your question, I
absolutely believe that investment in sound, resilient
infrastructure will incentivize private investments. In
particular, infrastructure performance is a key due diligence
metric in analyzing commercial real estate investment. Simply
put, nobody wants to invest in a property with an above-average
chance to become a stranded asset.
And, even if there is development in a noninvestment
market, companies want safe access to and from their facility
for both customers and employees. And that is why resilience in
infrastructure has to be part of the conversation.
Mr. Guest. And, continuing kind of on that same vein, in
February, winter storms across the South devastated many local
water and electric systems. Jackson, the capital city of
Mississippi, a city that I am proud to represent, parts of the
city lost water for more than 3 weeks, and here we are now 5
weeks out, and there are still portions of the city that do not
have an adequate supply of clean drinking water.
This has affected families, businesses, schools. All have
been affected by this.
Mr. Harper, you speak also in your testimony--on page 6,
you say that ``we are at a crossroads with regards to aging
structures and, combined with the significant increase in
severe weather events, we can no longer afford to deploy
temporary or Band-Aid fixes.''
And so my question to you is: What fixes to our aging
infrastructure can we make that will be most beneficial to the
taxpayers?
Mr. Harper. I think, at this point, it is not only what
fixes can we make, but what replacements need to be made? If
you look at a lot of the aging infrastructure, so much of it
was built post-World War II, and, with the rapid growth in
population in certain areas, that infrastructure, we continued
to put Band-Aids on that.
One example is stormwater systems in this country, which,
if you look at the ASCE report card, I believe received a D-
minus. That is just one example of the aging infrastructure
that we not only need to look at it and say, hey, what can we
do as a temporary fix, but, has it reached the end of useful
life? And would we be better served if we put those funds truly
towards replacement with an eye for the future, recognizing
that times have changed?
We are living in an environment where the frequency and
severity of storms is occurring in a much greater rate, and we
need to plan accordingly for that. So, there is that potential
that our existing infrastructure, even with certain upgrades,
may still be inadequate. So we really need to look at that with
an eye for what we expect to see in the coming years.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, sir.
And, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I particularly
thank you for this hearing. It is about something that the
Congress just seldom does, investing ahead of time in order to
save money in the long run.
My first question is for Mr. Fowke. I was interested in
your comments on housing affordability. My district and many
others like it find that young people, for example, are living
in apartments meant for two. Four or five are in that
apartment. Housing affordability is a major concern throughout
the country.
Residents who most need to modernize their housing are the
least likely to have the resources to do so.
Could I ask you, therefore: how effective are tax
incentives for low-income communities who don't pay enough
taxes to get a credit for home improvements? And what other
resources are there for them to modernize their homes? So could
I ask that two-part question.
Mr. Fowke. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
I think that it is important that there is financing
opportunities for people in these areas. The older homes stock
in our country is the area that needs real attention, that
needs construction to bring it up to being resilient.
Affordability has become more and more difficult with
regulations. Twenty-five to thirty percent of a house before it
is ever built--the cost of the house--is in regulations. And
there are people trying to make code changes out there that are
companies that are promoting a product in commerce. So we need
to trust research and use good data to make our decisions.
But the financing opportunity should be out there and
available to these areas that you are speaking of in your
district so that these older homes can be--the construction of
those homes can be brought to date, and have them be brought up
to being more resilient.
Ms. Norton. Yes. And I am not sure how low-income people
are going to be able to do so. I understand your answer.
My next question is for both Mr. Wright and Ms. Smith,
because you have focused on disadvantaged and low-income
residents. The most vulnerable housing to face challenging
upheavals in a disaster will make it difficult for low-income
and disadvantaged people.
What ideas do you have for how Congress can focus
resilience and mitigation on aid of some kind on those who are
most vulnerable? That is for you, Mr. Wright.
And, Ms. Smith, in a related question, you talk in your
testimony about breaking silos, to use infrastructure to
deliver benefits to communities. How can breaking silos benefit
high-poverty, vulnerable communities?
That two-part question is for Mr. Wright and Ms. Smith.
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
I think that there are a number of pieces that are here.
So, clearly, when people have the ability to pay for it, we
need to nudge them to go do it. Sometimes those kind of tax
incentives will help.
But I do think some ideas, like the community disaster
resilient zones, literally putting ways by which private
investment would be incentivized to go into those areas, you
know, variations, or maybe in a more targeted way towards
opportunity zones, first of all.
Second of all, many times these people are renting, and
this is a point where the HUD financing is there for those
multifamily dwellings. They may be a renter, but there is
Federal money that is backing those pieces up.
So, how do we make it a requirement at the point of
construction and even an ongoing requirement, that if you are
getting support, capital or otherwise, through HUD, you must be
meeting these resilience standards so that those who live there
can withstand the events.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith. Yes. I would certainly second what Mr. Wright
has said, is that, in many cases, it is the rental housing that
suffers significantly, and a lot of those folks are renting and
don't even recognize that there is a flood risk, for example.
I would go back to what Mr. Harper said. Some of the answer
is a whole-of-community solution. You may be able to help those
who are least able to help themselves by having better
stormwater infrastructure, and having better protection across
the community, not just the housing itself.
My testimony points out a really promising project by
Enterprise Community Partners with the city of Miami, called
Keep Safe Miami, where they are trying to work with housing
portfolio owners, to the multihousing portfolio owners, so that
they can improve those housing units, and protect the people
who are their renters.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
to the ranking member.
And I was looking at the statements of all the witnesses
today, and of course I think my constituents have had an
intensive 4 years between hurricanes, earthquakes, and now the
pandemic. One thing is clear, and it is about not that those
disasters are not coming to us, but how fast we can recover
from them?
And losing services, losing water, losing electricity, and,
in our case, even telecom, was something that we never
experienced before. So there is some truths, basics here.
First, natural disasters are never going to stop happening, and
we need those mitigation measures so our infrastructure and
housing and businesses are prepared to face them.
And, second, we cannot make infrastructure and buildings
indestructible, even if we wish. So that resiliency and the
capacity to get back to functioning should be the one that we
measure.
And it is not just fixing what is broken like it was
before. Every time, I think, that is wasteful, and the proper
mitigation and the resiliency measures in our times should be
to build back better. And I have been preaching that for the
last 4 years, because I think it is a taxpayer's expense and a
waste of money if we do not change the new buildings to the
current codes.
So, in that sense, I worked with Congressman Graves in the
fight for the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, and I will continue
to do and be by his side seeking those provisions to be fully
implemented. I think the critical services definition that we
have been promoting in several bills--and I am glad that one of
the witnesses even brought those issues up.
But I think, also, advocating for bringing structures to
the current building and safety codes, regardless of the
previous States should be the measure for all areas that are
being impacted by disasters.
However, I must bring up that there is something here that
we need to take care of as well, and it is the issue of the
funding. And you just brought it up. I must point out that,
from the information that I do have from FEMA, Puerto Rico
received $2.9 billion for risk mitigation assistance. Of that,
only $108 million has been obligated.
So, it is not just that the money has been approved by
Congress. It is how fast, or why people are stopping that money
from being obligated. And we must pay attention to why and who
is responsible, and what are the issues that are stopping that
money from coming?
So I will make one question right now to the Insurance
Institute for Business and Home Safety, and it is that--I am
looking at the appendix that you provided in your statement.
And I think it is good to know the census tract about the
National Risk Index among other things, but I am not seeing
Puerto Rico there.
So my question is: Are we included, and, if not, why?
Mr. Wright. So thank you for the question.
We included two illustrations in this, looking at the one
in Florida and one in Nevada, and I would be pleased to follow
up with you and look at some of the particulars that are
existing that apply there. It is built off of national risk
inventory pieces from FEMA, as well as other private-sector
pieces. And I will work with your staff to make sure that you
get yours as well.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
And one of the issues that has been one of the hurdles and
obstacles back home in Puerto Rico is that, in order to get
some FEMA funds to be obligated for Public Assistance, in many
areas, you need those municipalities and the State to actually
look at their insurance. And we have been fighting, for the
last 3 years, to get the insurance to pay.
Some of them went into bankruptcy. So it has been a
nightmare for a lot of private owners, including the government
of Puerto Rico, just to recover those funds. And that is
stopping much of the rest of the recovery process with
government buildings and public infrastructure, because we need
to wait for that.
In that sense, there is a claim, at least in my district--I
don't know if that is happening in the rest of the districts
here--how can we expedite that process of reviewing, doing the
assessment, making the proper payments, because once that is
done, then you have FEMA, and then you have the local
government doing the match-up for many of those issues.
Do you have any recommendations to direct me in that sense?
Mr. Wright. You know, ma'am, I think everything has to do
with the particulars of the claim that is in place, as is the
case in Puerto Rico, as is all across the United States. It is
a State-regulated entity on the insurance side of the equation,
and oftentimes, they are best positioned to lay in that space.
And, in some cases, you are saying some of those providers may
not exist as they did formerly.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I know my time has expired, Madam
Chair, so I will submit some questions for the record.
I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Well, we want to be sure that you follow up with
the information on Puerto Rico to Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
Mr. Wright. We will do so.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Ms. Davids?
Thank you. Then we will go to Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is with great interest that I am listening to this. One
of the things that we noted is that Mother Nature no longer is
dependable. We have things that have happened, like the cold in
Texas. And in California, we have problems with earthquake,
with fire, and with the levees out in northern California. But
I have long been a proponent that below ground is where the
utilities are to go.
But Mr. DeFazio is right [audio malfunction].
Ms. Titus. We lost you, Grace. I don't know if it is your
end or at our end. Do you want to try something, some magic?
We will come back to you, Grace. Oh, sorry.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. Van Duyne. Oh, yes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fowke, I just wanted to ask you a question. You had
suggested that we should take a comprehensive look at disaster
preparedness and recovery.
Would you mind elaborating on that?
Mr. Fowke. Would you repeat the question again?
Ms. Van Duyne. Sure. Sure. You had suggested that we should
take a comprehensive look at disaster preparedness and
recovery, and I am just wondering if you wouldn't mind
elaborating on that.
Mr. Fowke. Well, I think, if I spoke to that, it was in
regards to the model that the State of Florida has been over
the years, responding to hurricanes, preparing for future
hurricanes, and disasters that happen.
I am proud to say that I am a resident of Florida and a
homebuilder in Florida, and some of the requirements have been
difficult for everyone to accomplish and adjust to, but the
fruits of our labor have proven, like I said earlier, in Mexico
Beach, the results that we saw from there.
But, going forward, the State of Florida has done an
outstanding job being prepared for hurricanes, and the response
we have when a natural disaster happens, and even strong winds
can cause a lot of disaster or rain.
So the State of Florida has done an outstanding job of
being prepared for this, and I am just proud to say that we
have done a lot of work and research towards that goal.
Ms. Van Duyne. Well, I know you have. When I worked at HUD
back in 2017, when we had Hurricane Harvey and we had Hurricane
Maria--I am sure you remember that--I think the initial
estimates for damage in Florida was going to be over $5
billion, and ended up being less than half a billion dollars.
And that was almost specifically exclusively due to the fact of
the resiliency build; and a lot of States did not have that, as
Jenniffer was pointing out about Puerto Rico.
So I think we definitely learned our lessons on that.
Mr. Fowke. And we are very, very much in favor of anything
that we can do, because Puerto Rico is kind of a neighbor of
ours, and we have been working very hard to do what we can to
help Puerto Rico and the residents in Puerto Rico.
But, to give you an example of construction preparedness,
though, there has been a new rule in Florida where you have
your code where the house has to be built, for instance, 12.5
feet above sea level, to meet 100-year flood plain
requirements, and now they have just added an item called
freeboarding, which adds another foot to that requirement.
And the layman doesn't understand how 1 more foot adds, in
some cases, $5,000 to $10,000 to the cost of a house. So I keep
going back to housing affordability.
Ms. Van Duyne. Yeah.
Mr. Fowke. It is of the utmost importance for everyone,
everybody that has the dream of owning a home in our country.
Ms. Van Duyne. Oh, yeah. You just kind of teed me up, by
the way, for my other question.
There are some regulations, or administrative burdens, that
increase the time it takes homebuilders to deliver projects and
prevent innovation on resiliency. How can Congress address
those, and what kind of recommendations would you have? What
are you seeing?
Mr. Fowke. Policymakers need to reduce regulations.
Ms. Van Duyne. Do you want to be more specific? I just got
here. I just got here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fowke. Well, next time I am up in Washington, I will
have a class for you.
Ms. Van Duyne. OK.
Mr. Fowke. But, no. In Florida, I guess we are the leaders
in a lot of things in coastal construction, because hurricanes
are so prominent in our area. Ranking Member Webster was
involved with our codes committees that worked to create these
codes for hurricanes.
Ms. Van Duyne. Well, I guess I was just asking, do you see
that some of the regulations basically prohibit kind of the
innovations on different----
Mr. Fowke. Yeah, it does. It takes time, especially in the
land development side of it.
Ms. Van Duyne. OK.
Mr. Fowke. In some areas, there are multiple layers of
approvals, and, so, we have experienced that in Florida, and we
are--as a State, we are trying to do some things to help
eliminate some of the regulations. But some of it is
repetitive, and once you get past one layer of regulation,
there is another layer for you that is redundant. It is almost
a similar request, but just from a different office.
And so, I mentioned earlier that 25 to 30 percent of the
cost of a house right now is regulations, and the majority of
the regulations are attributed to the land development side of
it. But time is money, and under the circumstances now with
COVID and a lot of the shortages of materials and things we are
experiencing as an industry, lumber prices, affordability is
becoming very, very difficult. And we take this very seriously
at the National Association of Home Builders.
Ms. Van Duyne. Excellent. Well, thank you very much.
Chairman, I yield back my time.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
I believe Mrs. Napolitano is back with us?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, I am. Can you hear me now?
Ms. Titus. OK. We can, so the floor is yours.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My statement has been that maybe we need to look at what
agencies deal with hurricanes, or any kind of emergency and
what they do with the moneys they get. I know that you say that
they don't want to give up any kind of title or ownership, but
it would be nice to know what they do with anything they are
given.
The other thing I want to say is we ignore the Native
Americans, and, of course, the Territories as you have heard
from Puerto Rico. The Mariana Islands have suffered a lot of
hurricanes.
But, to Mr. Wright, the building codes in California are
very extensive and very harsh--I know that--but we have
earthquake, we have fires, and we have levees up in northern
California. Mother Nature has thrown a lot of curves, and will
continue to give us heartache, I think.
So how can we prepare for that? How do we amend our
building codes? Because every area is different. You can't say
that one applies to all of them. And any information that you
can give, dissemination to the legal cities, to the Governors,
to give to the cities so they can start looking at things that
they should be looking out for in their own areas. Anybody?
Mr. Wright. Yes. And thank you, Congresswoman.
What I would say to you is, first of all, California has
really, really solid building codes. I think on the earthquake
side, particularly, they are very good. They have good pieces
on wildfire as well.
But remember that most of the homes in California were
built well before any of the wildfire building codes came into
effect in that space.
As we move forward in that space, we have got to find a
way, particularly in wildfire, to understand there is
individual to the----
[Audio interruption.]
Mr. Wright. I will keep going. Sorry. That there is the
structure itself, but it is also the neighborhood and the
surrounding community, and it really requires all three of
those layers to take action.
Wildfire is one of those few pieces, that even if you
perfectly mitigate your home, your neighbor's not doing the
right thing can cause your home to burn.
Mrs. Napolitano. Sorry about that.
Yes. And I have an area in my backyard that we have a
mountain range, and so, we do have the ability of fires, and we
had several in the last couple of years that have really been
devastating. And then, it deals with the slush, the mud coming
down off the mountains, because later you get rains, and then
you get that additional burden for residents.
Mr. Wright. Yes. The Bobcat Fire this year that kind of set
off a whole series of cascades there in your district, and
then, when the rains do come, that turns into mud and flooding.
Mrs. Napolitano. To Ms. Smith, can you discuss the need for
increased investment in water quality in some water projects?
That is one of the areas that Chairman DeFazio and Mr.
Fitzpatrick and I introduced in the reauthorization of the
Clean Water SRF Program recently, and it includes a grant
program. But can you touch on that?
Ms. Smith. Be happy to.
As a former member of the Virginia State Water Control
Board, I know how important those programs are to States and to
localities. And I do understand that, it was maybe 10 years
ago, some of the leaders actually from California in the
wastewater industry and the water utility industry were calling
it the era of assessments, so that there is a lot of work going
on assessing vulnerability.
And I think, to the extent that you--for the utilities that
haven't done the assessments, to getting that going in your
infrastructure package, and also, to adding money so that they
will be able to start building in the protections to elevate
their mechanical components, their electric, to protect--put up
berms to protect their intake points, protect groundwater
supplies, all of that.
If you can add that into your package, that would be
greatly needed and greatly appreciated, I think.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we appreciate any comments you have
to forward to the committee or to committee staff or to my
office, and we will look at them and see if we can add them
now. But I would certainly like to thank everybody for being on
here.
It is interesting. Back maybe 10 years ago, maybe more than
that, I was looking at the insurance for the riverbed, and it
opened my eyes to the fact that many people don't know, because
they are renters that have the housing, and they don't hear
about it, and they don't get the insurance, and they are at
risk.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
You know, one thing that hadn't been mentioned is all these
projects, whether it is assessment or mitigation or
construction, result in the creation of jobs, and that is
another plus that comes from all of this.
Now I go to Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Madam Chair, I want to actually commend you for your
statement and questions earlier about all of the different
funding streams and resiliency programs across the Federal
Government. I believe Mr. Wright, to some degree, covers it in
his testimony as well.
As we all know, in this committee, we have nearly $100
billion in backlog Corps of Engineers-authorized projects. We
put $2 to $3 billion a year into the construction of those. You
do the math, and you will finish them approximately never.
In addition, we have the BRIC program; pre-disaster
mitigation; Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; Community
Development Block Grant; disaster recovery; you have NFIPs, ICC
program; the Federal Highway Administration has an emergency
program; the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. On
and on and on. And the problem is, is all of these programs,
they are siloed.
Now, Madam Chair, we work with you, and I, again, want to
thank Chairman DeFazio for the work we did on at least knocking
down one wall between Corps of Engineers programs and the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.
Look, if somebody has got a great idea for mitigation or
resiliency in their communities, we should be incentivizing
them to commingle the dollars and get these projects done, not
installing barriers to that.
And I want to turn to Mr. Strickland.
Mr. Strickland, would you like to share opinions or just
thoughts about the various Federal funds that can be used
potentially for mitigation or for resiliency-type investments,
yet the programs coming from a Federal agency--in some cases,
even the same agency--aren't allowed to be commingled, which
therefore prohibits completing projects? Do you think that is
something we should be addressing?
Mr. Strickland. Absolutely, and that is something our
association has been very interested in. And it really came to
light, particularly with some of the disasters in North
Carolina, where there is the pre-disaster mitigation money, and
then there is also the post-disaster mitigation money, and then
the opportunity for the funding out of HUD with the Community
Development Block Grant.
And the challenge of trying to line those programs up so
they can complement each other and truly make a long-term
difference, what I would call, really pushing forward the
future of mitigation, making it transformational--I know North
Carolina had some real challenges with that, and worked very
heavily with you all on that as well as at their State level.
But we constantly run into that where we have money from
two or three different Federal programs, but we can't use that
money to be part of the match to another program. Then we will
run into situations where the national highway administration
has coverage of the center of the roadway after a disaster, but
FEMA has the left and right of the roadway. It is very
cumbersome and challenging to get through that.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
And, Madam Chair, look, I remind you, part of the
dysfunction, or perhaps a lot of it, is our fault. You know, in
the Congress, the House Financial Services Committee has
jurisdiction over the Community Development Block Grant
program.
Candidly, I think that that really is something that is
related to disasters and should be more so under this
committee's jurisdiction.
But thank you, Mr. Strickland.
Mr. Wright, I really enjoyed reading through your
testimony. There are a lot of things in here that I think are
really insightful, based on your extensive experience with
NFIP. Actually, one thing I maybe disagree with and I just want
to ask you to clarify. You have said that we should permanently
authorize the Community Development Block Grant Disaster
Recovery Program, and I wanted to understand.
Do you believe that that specific program should be
permanently authorized, or do you believe that a long-term
recovery program should be authorized?
Mr. Wright. It is a long-term recovery program, CDBG-DR
being the one that Congress has been using. The principal
reason to say it needs to be permanently authorized is, right
now, it is a whole new program that starts up every single
time. It can have very different rules. It would be better if
there were some predictable pieces to CDBG-DR, thus our
recommendation that it have a permanent imprimatur from the
authorizers, as opposed to just getting filled up by the
appropriators.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. And I think that that
objective is what we really should be focusing on, and just
to----
Mr. Wright. Thank you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. Remind the committee,
we worked with Congresswoman Plaskett and introduced
legislation to actually do a FEMA long-term recovery program
within this committee's jurisdiction that would achieve the
objectives. Folks came and testified before this committee,
and, on average, it takes HUD 7 years to hit the same outlays,
percentages as the Economic Development Administration's
disaster program that they hit--I think it was in 12 months or
16 months or something like that. So it further impacts the
disaster victims.
And, Madam Chair, thank you very much. I look forward to
working with you on some of these issues, and yield back.
Ms. Titus. Yeah. I think we have our work cut out for us,
but we have some common goals here, and I look forward to
pursuing them with you, Mr. Graves.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I would actually love to follow up on what Congressman
Graves brought up a couple of minutes ago. You know, I
represent Kansas' Third Congressional District. We are pretty
centrally located. We have one of the largest intermodal hubs
in the country, and we happen to also have the confluence of
the Kansas and Missouri Rivers.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that the Kansas City
metro area is likely to be one of the most impacted
metropolitan areas because of climate change. And I think the
idea of how we fund projects and what we are doing around that
is really important, and Mr. Graves brought up some of the
different funding options.
And, at the close of the 116th Congress, the House and the
Senate reached an agreement to establish a resilience revolving
loan fund that would seed State-level funds, and would make 30-
year low-interest-rate loans to communities for investments in
resilience and mitigation projects. And that loan option is one
that has worked well on water infrastructure.
I am curious, Mr. Strickland, from your perspective as a
State leader in this space, if you could provide the
subcommittee with some of your thoughts on this new funding
option. And, you know, maybe we will be looking at Maryland for
ways to utilize this new option.
Mr. Strickland. Well, I appreciate that very much, because,
actually, Maryland has a bill in right now that would create a
fund that we could utilize for building resilience, and really
through mitigation projects.
Several other States have done the same thing, and I think
it is in the cooperation between the State governments and the
Federal Government with this project that we will really be
able to make some strong headway, particularly where we build
these funds, and we ultimately have some of the match
requirements that are available for the other grant programs as
we move forward. So we are 100 percent behind that.
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Mr. Strickland.
And I don't know if anybody else wants to weigh in on this
new funding option.
Ms. Smith. I would add from The Pew Charitable Trusts that
we certainly see a revolving loan fund concept--that construct
can help build institutional capacity and knowledge that can be
shared. So it is a good approach. We had backed that
specifically for flood, but think it makes sense to do it as
well across the board.
So we are very supportive.
Mr. Wright. If I could, I would go just one step farther
down this line. I think, as we look at the larger amounts of
dollars that are available in a BRIC program, or other kinds of
recovery pieces, the ability to bring match will be a gap.
If this revolving fund is put in place and adequately
filled up, I think it really becomes a reservoir for people to
be able to take actions far faster than they would be able to
do if they were simply waiting.
Ms. Davids. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Well, I would like to thank our panelists very much for
your information. Your presentations have been very helpful. We
will want to pursue some of the things that we have talked
about today, and we will look to you as a resource.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Webster, any comments?
Well, then, in that case, I don't see any questions, so,
again, thank you all for participating. I will ask unanimous
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
questions that may have been submitted to them in writing, or
provide information that was requested by the Members during
the hearing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by the Members or the witnesses to be included in the
record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Thank you again, and the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Titus, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
I also want to thank and recognize the new Subcommittee Ranking
Member, Mr. Webster of Florida.
Florida's annual hurricane season has given him significant
practical and policy experience with federal disaster preparation,
mitigation, and recovery programs.
I want to thank him for taking on this leadership role.
Whether it's combating the threat of hurricanes in Florida, severe
flooding in my district, or wildfires or tornados in others, resiliency
has been the cornerstone of the emergency management work of the
Committee.
Even before it was popular, it was this committee that helped press
the importance of investment in mitigation.
We can't continue to throw good money after bad by simply
rebuilding infrastructure and communities year after year rather than
building and rebuilding to withstand and last.
I've seen that firsthand in my district and I know other members
have as well.
Again, it is through investment in mitigation that we are going to
get a handle on the increased costs of disasters.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and the ongoing
work of the Committee on this topic.
Thank you, Chair Titus. I yield back.
Letter of March 18, 2021, from the National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association; National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; and Portland
Cement Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster
March 18, 2021.
Hon. Dina Titus,
Chair,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Daniel Webster,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management, 505 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for holding today's hearing on ``Building Smarter: The
Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation.'' The General
Services Administration (GSA) owns and leases nearly 377 million square
feet of space in 9,600 buildings in more than 2,200 communities
nationwide.\1\ This footprint represents a significant investment of
public funds and houses many of the most critical functions of the
federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We applaud the Subcommittee's recognition of the importance of
resilience and mitigation related to these buildings. Constructing
federal buildings and leasing existing structures built to resilient
standards will safeguard taxpayer dollars, prevent the need to rebuild
after natural disasters, and lower the embodied carbon of federally
owned and utilized structures.
Resilient Construction and Breaking the Cycle of Destruction
The number of billion-dollar disasters per year is rising. In 2020,
the U.S. experienced 22 billion-dollar severe weather and climate
disasters.\2\ These disasters represent devastating loss of life,
crippling economic setbacks, and significant expenditure of federal
emergency relief funds to rebuild and restore communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For federal buildings, natural disasters also represent a potential
disruption in service and loss of taxpayer funds as buildings are
repaired or restored. Building to resilient standards and investing in
pre-disaster mitigation efforts to prepare our built environment and
our communities to resist the impacts of natural disaster represents
significant taxpayer savings as resilient buildings do not require
significant repairs.
A study by the National Institute of Building Sciences indicates
that resilience and mitigation yield a $13 savings for every $1
invested.\3\ Similarly, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Concrete Sustainability Hub reports that factoring resilience into
building design can also reduce lifetime repair and maintenance in
hazard-prone areas.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/reports/
mitigation_saves_2019/ms_v4_overview.pdf
\4\ https://cshub.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/
CSHub_Building_Resilience_
Final%20.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To that end, it is critical that we build our public buildings,
infrastructure and federally-funded structures to resilient standards
that allow our facilities to withstand extreme weather events and
return to normal operations as quickly as possible.
Recognizing the limits of this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, we
would further note that resilient construction and mitigation should
not be limited to federal buildings. Nearly one-third of all existing
buildings in the United States will need to be rebuilt by 2030, simply
because they were not designed to last any longer. As these buildings
are rebuilt, we must take the opportunity to rebuild and replace with
resilient construction materials and techniques that will improve their
resiliency and durability to the changing climate.
We recommend to the Subcommittee's consideration the Disaster
Savings and Resilient Construction Act, legislation to provide a tax
credit for home and business owners who build or rebuild after a
natural disaster to a resilient standard. The legislation will
incentivize owners of structures to build or rebuild to a structure to
withstand future natural disasters. This policy will reduce federal and
social costs or rebuilding, but also eliminate the embodied carbon
associated with reconstruction activities. We strongly encourage
Congress to pursue policies that incentivize private construction and
reconstruction to a resilient standard, and strongly encourage this
Subcommittee to prioritize resilient construction in standards for
federal buildings.
Federal agencies have an important role to play as well. The
General Services Administration, for example, has been a leader in
developing policy to promote green building design and procurement.
Much of that work has focused on the construction phase of the planning
and assessment process, largely focusing on greenhouse gas intensity.
But greenhouse gas intensity and resiliency are inextricably linked. To
be truly effective in incentivizing sustainable construction and
operations, these efforts need to consider resiliency on equal footing
with carbon intensity and other factors.
Sustainable and Climate Benefits of Resilient Construction
In addition to preserving life, preventing economic losses, saving
taxpayer dollars, and minimizing disruptions in federally provided
services housed in public buildings, incorporating resilient
construction standards and pre-disaster mitigation planning in public
buildings represents an opportunity for reducing carbon emissions.
Buildings account for nearly 40% of U.S. emissions.\5\ While much of
that is operational emissions, embodied emissions can be reduced by
resilient construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.eesi.org/topics/built-infrastructure/description
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addressing methods for reducing embodied carbon, the
Underwriters Laboratory identified building and designing for the long
haul, use of recycled material and taking note of the embodied impacts
through Environmental Product Declarations.\6\ Building to resist
damage brought on by natural disasters prevents emissions generated by
rebuilding and repairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://spot.ul.com/blog/embodied-vs-operational-carbon/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research shows that in hazard-prone areas, the maintenance costs
can be significant over the lifetime of a building. In fact, the costs
of hazard-related repairs--financially and environmentally--can exceed
the initial construction costs. To reduce repair related costs, which
include energy consumption and repairs due to damages from hazards, it
is important to invest in resilient building construction. Research
published by Massachusetts Institute of Technology helps building
designers and owners calculate the risk and level of investment for
residential buildings in hurricane-prone communities.
This research can be used to calculate the break-even cost when
comparing a proposed baseline wood construction with an enhanced
concrete design for a multi-family residential building. In New
Orleans, for example, MIT's research shows the break-even cost for an
$8.5 million midrise apartment building is 8%, meaning nearly $700,000
could be spent up front on mitigation while still breaking even on
total cost over the life of the building--and obviating the need for
future reconstruction and its environmental impacts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://cshub.mit.edu/bemp-dashboard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Neutral Approach to Construction Materials
In approaching resilient construction and mitigation, we urge the
Subcommittee to take a material neutral approach. Establishing material
neutral standards for the durability, sustainability and performance of
federal buildings allow engineers and construction professionals to
construct the most resilient buildings and facilities. A material
neutral approach avoids picking winners and losers and maximizes
engagement from industry.
In establishing material neutral standards, we urge the
Subcommittee to encourage the adoption of a life cycle analysis that
evaluates the impacts of competitive materials using a cradle-to-grave
or cradle-to-cradle full life cycle view of materials and a full life
cycle cost analysis of construction and building operations. Without
considering the costs and benefits of material selection during the
use, reuse, recycling, or disposal phases of the lifecycle, federal
efforts to transition to a carbon neutral economy will be limited, if
not counterproductive.
Concrete as a Sustainable Building Material
While we strongly advocate that Congress take a material neutral,
standards-based approach to resilient construction, we believe that
concrete is a critical building material to improve the resiliency of
infrastructure and buildings--both public and private.
Concrete represents disaster-resilient construction that is capable
of withstanding the impacts of natural disasters and climate change,
resistant to natural elements like water and fire, and represents
building systems with the potential for net-zero energy efficient
structures.\8\ Concrete absorbs and permanently sequesters carbon over
its lifetime and is recycleable--further absorbing carbon during the
recycling process and over its next life. Furthermore, technological
innovation and optimal mix designs hold the promise of net zero
emission concrete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.specifyconcrete.org/blog/icfs-and-net-zero-
residential-construction
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, stone, sand and gravel--critical components to
concrete--are an essential resource for developing any type of
infrastructure and are key to producing renewable energy sources and
sustainable public works. From new electric vehicle charging stations,
to natural gas and hydrogen production and transportation, our members
stand ready to supply the needed construction materials for these
projects that will be needed to reduce emissions across the
transportation industry.
In producing these essential materials, the aggregates industry
takes every effort to run operations effectively to minimize waste,
reduce air emissions, and to conserve water and are always working to
improving energy efficiencies and developing alternative energy
sources. The aggregates industry has undertaken many greenhouse gas
mitigation efforts, such as investing heavily in fuel-efficient mobile
equipment and improving operational efficiency. Further, our members
are working to deploy new technologies that help further the goal of
reducing environmental impacts like the utilization of recycled
construction materials.
Members of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association are
leaders in taking aggressive action to protect our environment and
enhance environmental stewardship. Companies across the industry
routinely develop award-winning projects reclaiming land and unused
areas that conserve critical habitats and promote biodiversity.
Cement, the binding agent that binds these materials and gives
concrete its strength, is also part of a sustainable future. US cement
manufacturers have invested heavily in technology to make their plants
more energy and fuel efficient, substituting fossil fuels for lower-
carbon alternative, and leveraging alternative low-carbon cement mixes
like portland limestone cement and fly ash cement. These new
technologies not only reduce the carbon emissions associated with
cement manufacturing, they divert fly ash, nonhazardous wastes, and
other alternative materials from landfills, impoundments, and the
environment in the form of discarded waste, reducing the burden on host
communities.
The Portland Cement Association sees significant opportunity to
advance this transition to more efficient operations and lower carbon
feedstocks and fuels going forward. Indeed, these innovations are at
the heart of the cement industry's developing roadmap for achieving
carbon neutrality across the cement concrete supply chain by 2050. To
achieve these advances, however, the industry looks forward to working
with the committee to develop incentives and reduce impediments to
rapid transition.
Sustainable Access to Construction Materials
We encourage the Committee to examine policies that ensure local
sources of aggregates are available to supply construction projects. To
build the 21st century energy and transportation infrastructure that
will lead to reduced emissions we must have a sustainable supply of
building materials.
Further, having access to locally sourced materials is a key factor
in reducing costs of infrastructure projects and provides greater
return to taxpayers. Further, decreasing the distance aggregates must
travel to a project has shown to significantly reduce tail pipe
emissions from haul trucks and improve road safety. Ensuring
sustainable aggregates supply will support local economies with high
paying jobs, reduce construction costs, and improve environmental
outcomes.
We appreciate the opportunity to present these views and look
forward to working with you on these important issues.
Respectfully,
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.
Portland Cement Association.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to Russell J.
Strickland, Executive Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency,
on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association
Question 1. At the close of the 116th Congress, the House and
Senate reached an agreement to establish a resilience revolving loan
fund that would seed state-level funds that would make 30-year low-
interest loans to communities for investments in resilience and
mitigation projects. This loan option is one that has worked well with
water infrastructure. From your perspective as a state leader in this
space, can you provide the subcommittee with your thoughts on this new
funding option and whether Maryland is looking to utilize this new
option?
Answer. The resilience revolving loan fund is an opportunity which
Maryland intends to utilize, and communities across the nation will be
able to use to build stronger communities as the program is developed.
The Maryland General Assembly passed a bill establishing a state-level
revolving loan fund intended to capitalize on this federal legislation
in an effort to generate additional funding for mitigation and
resilience actions. The Resilient Maryland Revolving Loan Fund also
promotes equity by prioritizing communities with the greatest financial
need and targeting historically disenfranchised jurisdictions. We
believe that this action, in addition to the actions by the federal
government, will greatly enhance our mitigation, building resilience
efforts, specifically with the matching fund requirements. We also
encourage Congress to prioritize resilience and mitigation as they
consider bills that provide sweeping investments in infrastructure. The
investments we make now will have impacts for generations to come.
As a witness representing all state emergency managers, however, I
would be remiss in not also mentioning apprehensions by some of my
colleagues. Hurdles in other states include a lack of organizational
capacity to manage such a program and potential legal impediments to
local participation. At this time, I am not sure how widespread the use
of resilience revolving loan funds will be nationwide.
Question 2. Studies show that $1 of prevention saves $4-$6 in
disaster losses. Yet the government spends $1 pre-disaster for every
$14 post disaster. Does the National Emergency Management Association
(NEMA) believe more should be done at the federal level to shift and
balance these numbers since we know pre-disaster spending saves
taxpayer dollars and lives? If so, does NEMA have specific
recommendations to modify the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) existing Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs?
Answer. NEMA strongly believes that mitigation spending is
paramount to creating more resilient infrastructure and driving down
the overall costs of disasters. Programs such as the National Public
Infrastructure Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Program (also known as
BRIC) will go a long way toward shifting the paradigm away from
mitigating post-event. But while pre-disaster mitigation is important,
so too are the programs currently built to aid in mitigation efforts.
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), for example, is funded
based on receiving a disaster declaration and known costs while BRIC is
a competition-based program. Both provide benefits to the overall
system and allow a diversity of states to participate. Not all
mitigation funding should be post-disaster, but neither should it all
be competitively based through programs such as BRIC.
Overall, grantees should be empowered to implement transformative
mitigation actions with the greatest potential community benefits by
allowing states and locals the discretion to choose projects which meet
FEMA allowable project types and align them with the goals established
in approved mitigation plans. Given that local communities are on the
front lines of fighting the battle against climate change and
disasters, they understand more clearly the threats and hazards facing
their communities. Thus, Congress should give FEMA the flexibility to
maximize BRIC funds by exploring a combination of competitive and
formula-based awards. This will allow states to administer BRIC grants
and will better-align mitigation priorities across all levels of
government.
States and communities have access to a variety of possible
mitigation programs across the federal government, all with the
overarching goal of helping grantees become more resilient and better
prepared for future disasters. The specific authorities and purposes of
such programs usually vary, however, and FEMA may not have authority to
allow grantees to co-mingle funds or shift the priorities of specific
grant dollars. Nonetheless, FEMA should:
Work across the federal interagency and with Congress to
obtain the necessary authorities to allow grantees to blend various
projects with support from other mitigation programs available within
FEMA and across the federal government.
Allow for collaboration, convergence, and promotion of
projects that enhance the level of protection of people and property
across various programs regardless of the funding sources and legal
requirements.
Anticipate future conditions by broadening allowable
project types which meet hazard impacts.
In terms of broad programmatic changes, NEMA believes time must
first be allowed for new programs such as BRIC to take hold and be
properly evaluated. BRIC was created in 2018 and a full application and
award cycle has not yet been completed. While we appreciate the
excitement over further developing mitigation programs, constantly
changing guidance, programs, and priorities creates confusion at the
state and local levels and does not allow newly established programs to
be fully implemented.
Question 3. Investment in hazard mitigation such as flood control
projects and seismic retrofitting is key to improving our disaster
resilience and reducing the costs of future disasters. To this end, in
the nine-year period fiscal year 2010 to 2018, FEMA funded $11 billion
in state and local hazard mitigation efforts through four grant
programs. However, many state and local officials report that the grant
application process for these programs is prohibitively complex and
lengthy. What steps could FEMA take to simplify and streamline the
grant application process and encourage state and local investment in
hazard mitigation?
Answer. Grantees should be empowered to implement transformative
mitigation actions with the greatest potential community benefits by
allowing states and locals the discretion to choose projects which meet
FEMA allowable project types and align them with the goals established
in approved mitigation plans. This will better-align mitigation
priorities across all levels of government. Additionally, trusting the
applicants' judgement in making policy and project determinations will
better meet the varied needs of diverse communities. This can be
accomplished by FEMA establishing its priorities as early as practical
in the application process.
Applicants should also be allowed greater oversight of funding
activities. The current oversight regime is overly restrictive due to
the numerous stipulations requiring applicants to serve as the
``middleman'' to convey information and arrange reviews between sub-
applicants and FEMA. This prevents the achievement of FEMA's goal of
proper, full-cycle grant management and implementation. If an
application is eligible under FEMA's allowances and meets the
guidelines established through the FEMA approved hazard mitigation
plans, then applicants should be provided the ability to exercise
discretion in funding allocations to include decisions such as
conducting sub-award reviews, approving sub-awards, and monitoring
projects and finances.
Disasters occur without warning and require immediate resources.
The length of time the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance application
takes must be shortened. Oftentimes disaster survivors are not able to
wait several months or years for hazard mitigation assistance when in
reality funding is needed quickly. In these circumstances they pursue
alternative pathways to return to normal and the opportunity for
mitigation is lost. This creates a disaster rebuild cycle that could
potentially be averted by seizing the opportunity for mitigation.
Question 4. Have you, or has the Maryland Emergency Management
Agency (MEMA), found resistance in your efforts to better prepare
Maryland communities for disasters? If so, from whom?
Answer. ``Resistance'' is not necessarily seen in our efforts to
strengthen resilience. However, resultant financial requirements can
sometimes generate resistance given competing priorities. In our
efforts to inculcate a culture of preparedness, the greatest resistance
we encounter again, is financial, in that we need staff and operational
support. Too much of the time we are focused on the response phase,
without which when events occur additional damage could potentially
result. Thus, we need to be prepared to respond. And yet the need to
build a resilient state through transformational prevention,
protection, and mitigation is equal, if not greater, when coupled with
our recovery efforts.
Maryland is a state with diverse needs. Our rural, low resourced
communities raise concerns regarding the ability to provide the non-
Federal share portion of the projects for community-based proposals,
but there are also financial concerns in our urban communities. In some
urban communities, homeowners face challenges with providing the cost-
share for individual projects.
Local communities must be mindful of local, state, and federal
priorities in order to be successful in the nationally competitive
grant cycles. As such, providing local jurisdictions and states the
flexibility to prioritize the projects that align with their priorities
will reduce the complexity of identifying and developing projects.
Investments made today will translate into safer communities in the
future. Across the nation most emergency managers do not experience
resistance to implementing these types of programs, however there are
many other programs and initiatives that are prioritized for funding
ahead of mitigation and resilience. With a renewed bipartisan focus on
building stronger infrastructure and the first year of BRIC projects
submitted it is an opportune time to surge funding into communities to
not only build needed infrastructure but do so in a way that will adapt
to our changing environment and save future taxpayer dollars.
Question 5. As the Committee looks to be the best stewards of
taxpayer dollars, what actions can Congress and federal agencies take
to better harmonize the numerous emerging disaster programs (HUD's
CDBG-DR and Mit programs, DOT, DOE, EPA, etc.) so these that they are
accountable, cost effective, and coordinated for seamless delivery of
disaster assistance and that they remove unnecessary barriers to
recovery?
Answer. There are three specific ways in which the Committee can
ensure disparate federal disaster programs are accountable, cost-
effective, and coordinated.
First, clarify FEMA's role during incidents and disasters that
require multi-agency coordination. FEMA should be the lead coordinating
agency for all multi-agency incidents across all phases of the
incident, to include recovery. This includes Stafford Act and non-
Stafford Act events.
Second, develop a universal application for disaster survivors and
grant management system for applicants and subapplicants that could
then be utilized across all federal disaster assistance programs. This
seamless interagency data sharing would enable significantly better
communication and coordination, as well as faster disbursement of funds
and improved oversight and accountability.
Finally, no discussion of long-term recovery would be complete
without addressing the CDBG-DR program at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). We always appreciate the support of Congress
in appropriating funds to CDBG-DR, and HUD has been a great partner to
the states in administering the program. The program, however, remains
bifurcated from other federal recovery programs and the lack of a
regular authorization leaves states waiting months, if not years for
HUD to publish Federal Register notices for funding.
Congress should consider working with stakeholders to affect
Stafford changes that include prioritizing pre-disaster mitigation
funding programs, aligning federal funding for recovery and resilience
(e.g. CDBG) under FEMA, and applying the countless lessons learned in
the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Question 6. How does NEMA believe that FEMA can better help
communities identify and implement hazard mitigation and disaster
resilience efforts that will have the greatest impact on reducing
community risk?
Answer. FEMA has adopted the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) definition of resilience: ``The ability to prepare
for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand and recover rapidly
from disruptions. Resilience includes the ability to withstand and
recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally occurring
threats or incidents.'' It is better to allow the states to work with
locals to identify those efforts as they are the most knowledgeable of
the impacts to a certain region, as long as they stay within the
confines of what FEMA has adopted to mean resiliency. FEMA can
certainly maintain their role as support but should provide flexible
funding to state and local organizations to implement resilience
locally.
True investment and commitment is required in order to assist
communities in identifying hazards and assessing vulnerabilities. FEMA
must ensure sufficient resources and funding are available and
accessible to continue to support hazard mitigation planning efforts
and subsequent implementation.
Question 7. What actions should federal agencies take to help the
nation achieve greater disaster resilience? For example, what
opportunities exist for federal agencies to ``mainstream'' risk
reduction, by integrating disaster resilience goals and activities into
all their missions and initiatives?
Answer. Federal agencies must start now in understanding each of
the missions and how they respond to varying events. Through these
partnerships, they could find out who would be best positioned to
implement assistance to the states and locals for the next disaster;
find ways to improve mitigation and preparedness efforts; and overall
provide a more robust national resiliency plan that covers the health
of our citizens and communities. If it is FEMA's role to be the primary
lead, then they must be challenged to create such partnerships and
understanding of the other agencies' missions. FEMA should apply the
emergency management system model of multi-agency coordination to the
issue of resilience and mitigation programs. Having those partnerships
and knowledge already in place adds to the resiliency of our nation by
stakeholders knowing where to go at any given point rather than waste
valuable time trying to understand all the intricacies of each of our
federal partners and how they could be best utilized to streamline
response and recovery. Leveraging FEMA as a one-stop-shop for all
mitigation and resilience programs across the federal agencies would be
a tremendous benefit to resource constrained state and local
communities. This is not to suggest that all these programs should
legally reside within FEMA, but rather to empower FEMA to assist states
in managing disparate federal programs.
Question 8. Fewer than 40 percent of FEMA-funded Public Assistance
projects have included a mitigation component during the period 2010 to
2018. What can FEMA do to incentivize state and local officials to
incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-damaged
facilities?
Answer. NEMA believes the incentive for state and local officials
to incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-damaged
facilities is inherent in states' desire to prevent impacts from future
disasters. What interferes with that incentive, however, is the
flexibility in existing programs to give states the ability to manage
necessary improvements to facilities during repair operations. Projects
funded through the Public Assistance (PA) program are currently micro-
managed primarily out of fear of fulfilling audit requirements in
subsequent years. If states had more flexibility to implement PA at
their discretion with FEMA merely ensuring programmatic requirements
are met, such mitigation priorities would occur naturally.
Question 9. In the latest Government Accountability Office (GAO)
High-Risk Report, issued early this year, GAO again finds that the
federal government must reduce its fiscal exposure by managing climate
change risks and that it has yet to make measurable progress to reduce
its fiscal exposure to climate change. What do you think the federal
government ought to do to build or rebuild infrastructure so that it is
resilient to future conditions of climate change-related impacts such
as inland and coastal flooding, wildfires, or extreme heat over the
life-cycle of the project?
Answer. NEMA strongly believes that mitigation spending is
paramount to creating more resilient infrastructure and driving down
the overall costs of disasters. States hold the expertise on the
impacts their communities experience due to such future conditions
listed in the question. The federal government can support efforts to
mitigation spending in such programs already discussed such as BRIC or
HMGP. These programs should prioritize addressing climate change risks
and encourage projects with co-benefits.
Question 10. The Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities
(BRIC) program offers the opportunity for the nation to make sizable
investments in disaster risk reduction. How can FEMA administer BRIC to
ensure effective reduction of risk to whole systems, communities, and
regions rather than as a ``pre-disaster mitigation on steroids'' that
invests more money using the same fragmented, stove piped, and
parochial approaches that historically have failed to result in
significant overall risk reduction or address the nation's most
significant infrastructure and community risks?
Answer. NEMA believes the BRIC program will be successful if the
following tenets are followed:
1. Promote broader Grantee Collaboration and Consistency. Promote
broader grantee collaboration to encourage creative applications
crossing state, jurisdictional, or artificial FEMA regional boundaries.
2. Expand the Traditional Definition of ``Mitigation'' and
Encourage Large Infrastructure Projects. This includes encouraging
large infrastructure projects that would not only promote health and
safety but expand economic opportunities and the impact of mitigation.
3. Empower Grantees to Control Mitigation Priorities. By allowing
grantees greater oversight of funding activities, the new program can
be uniquely streamlined and ensure better alignment of mitigation
priorities across all levels of government.
4. Allow for Coordination Across Existing Programs. Existing
federal programs remain disjointed which does not harness the full
power of available programs and funding. If not already in place, FEMA
must seek the appropriate authorities to leverage various mitigation
programs across the federal interagency to reduce administrative
burdens and ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds.
5. Maintain a Minimum Set-Aside for All Applicants. A minimum set-
aside allows those small or rural states a fair chance to compete for
mitigation projects while also rewarding disaster-prone states which
already support large mitigation initiatives.
6. Support and Enhance Planning and Traditional Projects. While
large infrastructure projects remain the hallmark of the new mitigation
program, the underlying need for building capacity and supporting
traditional projects is paramount to achieving nationwide resilience.
7. Rethink the Notice of Priorities, Application Process, and
Award Cycles. The establishment of priorities, the overall application
process, and even common assumptions on traditional award cycles should
be challenged, streamlined, and improved if barriers exist.
8. Build Implementation Capacity Through Technical Assistance.
Large infrastructure projects require expertise from across federal,
state, and local agencies. Grantees and FEMA must reach across other
partners and stakeholders in all aspects of this new program from
setting priorities, aligning projects, and implementing strategies.
9. Offer Flexibility in Benefit-Cost Analysis Approaches. The
current Benefit-Cost Analysis is cumbersome and unfair to small and
rural states. While making changes to the overarching programs, the
Benefit-Cost Analysis must be simplified with a more level playing
field.
Question 11. We are just beginning to assess the response to the
2020 BRIC grant cycle. Can or has NEMA already identify areas which
need to be improved or challenges that need to be addressed?
Answer. Given that local communities are on the front lines of
fighting the battle against climate change and disasters, they
understand more clearly the threats and hazards facing their
communities. Thus, Congress should give FEMA the flexibility to
maximize BRIC funds by exploring a combination of competitive and
formula-based awards. This will allow states to administer BRIC grants
and will better-align mitigation priorities across all levels of
government.
The program must also be fully funded. Up to six percent of the
previous year's disasters losses are available for the program. In
2020, despite over $900 million in funding availability, the
administration only authorized $500 million in BRIC funding. Demand far
outpaced the available funding in this grant cycle. Additional funding,
to include the full six percent of COVID-19 disaster losses from 2020
should be included in the 2021 cycle.
Question 12. State and local officials often mention the challenges
they face in implementing and enforcing codes, largely due to a lack of
resources. What more could the federal government do to help states and
communities overcome this hurdle?
Answer. The federal government should incentivize state and local
adoption of strong building codes based on national standards and the
hazards of the region. In many states, legislatures can take action on
the matter by implementing statewide building code requirements. The
federal government should provide resources to states to make this a
reality, as well as support states and communities that are unable to
unilaterally make these changes. NEMA is positioned to assist state
emergency managers in state-action on building codes.
Question 13. In November 2020, a FEMA study found that over a 20-
year period, cities and counties with modern building codes would avoid
at least $32 billion in losses from natural disasters, when compared to
jurisdictions without the same codes. What steps can FEMA take to
further promote and help communities adopt modern building codes?
Answer. While not all codes are appropriate in all instances,
ensuring building codes meet the needs of a locality and its hazard
profile has a demonstrated impact on community resilience in the event
of a disaster. FEMA programs should be careful not to usurp state
authority in setting building codes appropriate to a variety of
situations based on local conditions; however, FEMA can incentivize
adoption of building codes through administration of grant funds and
provide additional resources to assist communities in updating building
codes.
Question 14. Building departments are charged with protecting their
communities and ensuring construction adheres to the building codes and
resiliency requirements their jurisdiction has adopted. Many of these
departments relied on paper-based processes prior to the pandemic and
had to quickly adapt to work remotely--presenting challenges to their
efforts. As Congress considers investments in infrastructure, should
resources be provided to assist building departments in modernization,
resulting in more efficient processes while maintaining their public
protection mission? Does NEMA feel these resources should pass through
emergency management agencies to building officials, or directly to
state building agencies?
Answer. The day to day management of building codes is the
responsibility of building officials, but emergency managers must be
able to provide consultation on local and regional hazards. While
resources to address these challenges could go directly to building
officials, they should include stipulations that require input from the
local emergency manager. Emergency managers understand the broader
implications of disaster risk and are uniquely positioned to apply a
strategic perspective to the issue of building codes. Similarly,
emergency managers are not involved in the technical execution of
infrastructure projects (e.g., roads) but should provide input into the
process from a risk reduction perspective. In summary, emergency
managers should have equal/fair representation in the planning and
building code adoption process.
Question 15. We know that the adoption of the latest edition of the
building code gives the greatest return on investment--$11 for every $1
invested. What can be done federally to incentivize states to adopt and
enforce model statewide building codes?
Answer. FEMA has stated that it wishes to support the adoption of
appropriate building codes through programs such as BRIC but if
applicants are disadvantaged due to their older building codes and are
unable to obtain funding for those projects it only perpetuates a cycle
that leaves buildings and people less safe. Especially in the initial
years of the BRIC process, we encourage FEMA to be understanding of the
different status of codes nationwide and work collaboratively and not
punitively to support the states as they work to raise their building
code standards.
Question 16. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
Answer. In recent years, NEMA's state-based membership has evolved
to accept ``consensus-based building code'' requirements in many cases.
While this still interferes with the ability for states to set their
own requirements, it at least sets a baseline of quality while avoiding
more onerous requirements such as ``modern'' building codes.
Question 17. It seems that even across FEMA's programs, there is
not the uniform application of consensus-based codes and standards
(Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the
National Flood Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent
application across the numerous federal programs that drive investments
in resilience and mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive
orders effectively reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management
Standard. Should there be a legislative requirement that the
investments of all federal funds in built infrastructure follow these
foundational flood requirements?
Answer. Federal grant funds to state and local communities should
be focused on providing flexible solutions to state and local risk
problems. The federal government should not be investing in projects
that fail to eliminate long-term risk to disasters. In the same vein,
FEMA and other granting organizations should avoid overly prescriptive
requirements that increase barriers to entry for vulnerable and
disenfranchised communities.
Question 18. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
mitigation? How can those be overcome?
Answer. Across the nation households are struggling to meet the
basic requirements of daily life. While there are a number of actions
households can take to reduce their disaster risk, they are oftentimes
cost prohibitive or not in line with the immediate priorities of the
family. A nationwide campaign to inform homeowners of the concrete
steps is a first step in raising awareness of hazards and what can be
done to lessen said hazards. The federal government also can provide
incentives for homeowner action through tax credits for eligible
actions.
Aside from existing homes, new construction standards should be
based upon consensus building codes for the area and lessen the impacts
of hazard impact on individual homes. This includes limiting future
development in high-hazard areas and installing hazard mitigation
solutions in new construction like tornado safe rooms in areas
vulnerable to tornadoes. Other steps, including mandatory residential
sprinkler systems have been shown to drastically reduce losses and save
lives.
Question 19. What actions can Congress take that would be most
effective in supporting the resilience of low- and moderate-income
families?
Answer. The first action Congress can take to most effectively
support the resilience of low- and moderate-income families is to
ensure federal programs maintain the necessary flexibility to allow
states to serve those populations. In addition to providing flexibility
to states, Congress should not over-prescribe requirements on FEMA,
thereby allowing the states and FEMA to work together in making sure
programs are best tailored to the conditions of individual communities.
Broadening the definition of small, impoverished communities will
provide a pathway for more low- and moderate-income families to access
the increased Federal cost-share and reduce financial barriers to
implementing mitigation.
Question 20. In its recent equity report, FEMA's National Advisory
Committee stated that throughout the entire disaster cycle, communities
that have been underserved stay underserved, and thereby suffer
needlessly and unjustly. How could FEMA better target federal
assistance to communities of low- to middle-income, and communities who
have been historically and disproportionately disadvantaged?
Answer. FEMA could target federal assistance to communities of low-
to middle-income, and communities who have been disadvantaged by:
Providing easier access and simplifying FEMA disaster
assistance programs so that rural communities and disadvantaged
individuals/families can apply and receive assistance;
Reviewing all grant programs through an equity lens to
determine whether funding increases or decreases equity over time, and
make necessary adjustments; and
Targeting preparedness and mitigation resources to
communities that are most in need of federal funding to build
resilience in those communities.
Question 21. According to the First Street Foundation there are
nearly 4.3 million homes across the U.S. with substantial flood risk
that would result in financial loss. The analysis indicates that if
these homes were to be insured against flood risk through the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the rates would need to increase to
cover the risk today, and that the cost of expected annual loss of
properties in the next 30 years will grow by as much as 61% due to
climate change. Do you think Congress should compel FEMA to develop an
affordability program under the NFIP? If so, how urgent is the need,
especially for low- and fixed income, historically disadvantaged
communities and communities of color?
Answer. The National Flood Insurance Program does not fall under
the emergency management agency in most states. NEMA believes, however,
that Congress should do all it can to ensure a robust, affordable,
solvent, and effective flood insurance program available to the
broadest population of eligible residents.
Question 22. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
partnerships to help educate and promote resilience and overcome
potential obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing
in resilience?
Answer. Building relationships and trust are the most critical
elements of forging creative partnerships between the private and
public sectors to help educate and promote resilience. The biggest
obstacle that has plagued the public private partnership conversation
is the myth that you have to give something to get something. After
what we have seen and experienced this past year, we should all have a
better understanding of what community is and that we are all in this
together.
Recent changes in funding programs have opened the door to a
community's ability to apply the whole of community approach but the
education on how to implement and engage is lacking. Some stakeholders
have expressed concern that smaller projects or funding for planning
may be less likely to obtain support through programs like FEMA's
Building Resilience Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program, and
that small, impoverished, or rural communities may not have the
capacity to apply for and administer the larger amounts which could be
funded by such programs.
In addition to federally funded programs, Congress could consider a
program similar to a medical thrift savings plan translated to disaster
preparedness and resilience initiatives. This could mean that an
individual and businesses could participate by directing pre-tax
dollars toward preparedness and resilience efforts for themselves and
their employees. Similar to a medical savings plan, specific activities
would be pre-determined as being eligible. Private sector partners
could, and likely would, promote these programs internally and benefit
from the outcomes and the tax breaks. For example, a business could
match savings and implement preparedness programs teaching and
supporting employees to build personal plans and put policies and
protocols in place for how they deal with disasters. Similarly,
individuals who participate could direct money towards priorities such
as flood insurance, preparedness kits, home generators, and disaster
savings.
The full solution to developing these relationships, however, do
not and cannot rest solely with Congress. Another obstacle that needs
to be considered are the various regulations and laws currently in
place in each state dictating the way in which states and locals can
engage with the private sector. Each state must determine what if any
legislative changes need to be made to enable these partnerships to
flourish.
Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Russell J. Strickland, Executive
Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the
National Emergency Management Association
Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
a. What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
standards?
Answer. FEMA must reduce the complexity of the grant programs the
agency administers in all program areas. This includes making Public
Assistance funding that is used to rebuild public infrastructure
flexible enough to not only recover but also build back stronger, while
simultaneously applying the principles of mitigation in the recovery
process.
With regard to FEMA's Individual Assistance (IA) Program, efforts
should be made to continue to streamline the process and lessen the
administrative burden on survivors. This includes continuing to embrace
strategies to shift the burden from survivors to FEMA staff, and
working to implement known challenges in the administration of the IA
program.
FEMA should have field staff who can immediately deploy and begin
the process of appraising structures as an effort to streamline this
process for individuals and communities. The current standard practice
is that the homeowner and/or community hire an appraiser and are
reimbursed once the project is approved.
Based on the state-specific issues inherent with this question,
however, we recommend consulting with the Mississippi Emergency
Management Agency for further elaboration.
b. Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
Answer. FEMA should look to the real estate market to identify
opportunities to expedite the buyout process following disasters.
Disaster survivors are not able to wait several months to relocate or
find alternative housing. In addition to expediting the time required
to develop an application and receive FEMA funding, FEMA should offer
support services for relocation. These include social services required
when individuals are unexpectedly relocated from their homes. For low-
and moderate-income families, they may be limited on how far they can
move from their existing homes due to transportation, employment, and
other factors. FEMA should coordinate with other agencies in order to
provide these types of social services to assist in relocation.
Based on the state-specific issues inherent with this question,
however, we recommend consulting with the Mississippi Emergency
Management Agency for further elaboration.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to Roy E.
Wright, President and Chief Executive Officer, Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety
Question 1. You indicated during the hearing that your organization
had done follow-on studies about how Hurricane Michael affected the
Florida Panhandle, including the importance of building codes. Could
you please detail for us the findings with specific attention to homes
built prior to 2000, prior to 2008, and over the past decade?
Answer. The IBHS damage assessment for Hurricane Michael focused on
the initial landfall location near Panama City, Florida. This allowed
the team to investigate structural performance of residential
construction in the area of highest winds and in lower wind speed areas
west of the storm track to obtain a cross-section of performance of
residential construction across the various wind speed zones.
Although IBHS was not able to assess houses based on year of
construction in this study, IBHS did observe that newer residential
buildings built under the modern Florida building codes as compared to
older construction. In addition, IBHS observed that FORTIFIED
construction proved effective for minimizing wind damage in the
hardest-hit area of Mexico Beach. Another nearby FORTIFIED residence
demonstrated the added advantage of elevating the structure to minimize
the effects of storm surge. Further, construction practices for the
Habitat for Humanity's Habitat Strong residences (which encourages
beyond-code construction techniques based on those of the FORTIFIED
Home program) proved effective, as these structures performed better
than many of the surrounding structures when subjected to winds near
the design level. This finding demonstrates that resilience is possible
across all levels of home values.
Aerial images available from NOAA also provide points of comparison
between homes constructed to the Fortified standard and neighboring
houses. The below image demonstrates that the roof on the circled
Fortified house, located above the canal, performed better than the
roofs on the line of houses, built in the 2004-2006 time frame
according to real estate records, on the other side of the canal.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 2. You highlighted the need to target investments in
expanding and modernizing building code implementation through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. Could you please provide
specific details on your recommendation?
Answer. Congress can amend the Stafford Act to direct FEMA's
Building Resilient Infrastructures and Communities (BRIC) program to
create set-asides to incentivize new state-level building code
enactment, modernization, and enforcement. These funds should target
the creation and expansion of building code activities, not simply fund
what is ongoing in given jurisdiction. These funds would be most
effective if used to catalyze advancement in building code adoption and
enforcement, not as a stream of ongoing financial support.
Question 3. You spoke at length in your testimony about housing as
infrastructure. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
mitigation? What specific actions do you suggest Congress take to
address this infrastructure need while advancing resilience, both for
new and existing construction, and also for low- and moderate-income
families?
Answer. The two most significant obstacles for residential
mitigation are risk awareness and funding. Regarding the first
obstacle, social science suggests that effectively evaluating risk--
particularly high impact, low likelihood risk like natural disasters--
is challenging for most people. When it comes to natural perils, people
usually feel more protected than they are. To overcome this obstacle,
Congress should direct federal agencies to make more climate- and
natural disaster-related data available to the public. This will allow
both the public and private sector to use this data to shape policies,
inform communities and individuals, and develop market-based solutions
to risk.
Regarding the second obstacle, different types of financial
incentives and support mechanisms are needed to provide funding for
residential resilience. This includes:
Tax credits for eligible expenses paid by individuals and
businesses for purchases that help reduce potential damage from
hurricanes, flooding, and other forms of natural disaster. Making these
tax credits transferable would make them a useful financial resource
for low- and moderate-income families that otherwise would not be able
to take advantage of the credits.
Ending federal taxation for of the benefits individuals
and businesses receive from state-based catastrophe-loss mitigation
programs.
Creating resilience set-asides within funding
authorization for existing affordable housing programs. Investing in
resilience and energy- and water-efficiency for housing for low- and
moderate-income families ensures that those homes have lowered monthly
utility and insurance costs and are more able to avoid damage in future
natural disasters. This creates a framework in which those homes are
enduringly affordable--and not just affordable on the day of purchase.
Question 4. Our water infrastructure has proven time and again to
be vulnerable to be heat and seismic events. We have learned that some
water systems have been contaminated in the wake of wildfire due to
melting pipelines. What can we do to strengthen key infrastructure
against these risks?
Answer. IBHS research does not extend to the components of water
infrastructure. As with other types of infrastructure, however, water
infrastructure should be built to both current consensus standards (if
available) and be able to withstand knowable risks for a thirty-year
period. Put another way, infrastructure should only need to be built
once in a generation. Moreover, existing infrastructure need not be
rebuilt in every instance to make it resilient to knowable natural
perils. For example, replacing materials that can melt during wildfires
could be a more cost-effective resilient-enhancing investment than
replacing whole water infrastructure systems.
Question 5. Wildfires in western states have been devastating to
the lives of so many survivors and communities. In the wake of every
fire, we worry about the next one. How can Congress provide new tools
to mitigate against the risk of wildfires and prepare before wildfires
strike?
Answer. Wildfire risk to homes, businesses, and communities can be
reduced but it cannot be eliminated. In part, this is because the
intensity of wildfires varies in parcel scale, and wildfire-resistant
building materials and designs that are effective up to a certain
thermal exposure are limited once these thresholds are met. The
insurance industry's understanding of wildfire risk and the steps that
can make homes and communities more resilient is improving. We know a
variety of mitigation actions at different price points that can
decrease a home's resilience to wildfire. Notwithstanding this initial
progress, developing a collective understanding of the various dynamics
of wildfire risk is complicated by the interdependencies in densely
developed suburban neighborhoods, where resilience-enhancing actions by
one homeowner can be undermined by a neighbor's failure to take proper
actions. In addition, because of the importance of defensible space,
ongoing property maintenance (including but not limited to controlling
vegetation) makes it very difficult to assess a home's vulnerability
over time.
Due to the interdependence of homes that make up a community when
it comes to wildfire risk and resilience, Congress should consider ways
to incentivize or financial support whole neighborhoods to take
consistent resilience actions that will maximize the benefits for all
members of the neighborhood.
Question 6. How can FEMA better help communities identify and
implement hazard mitigation and disaster resilience efforts that will
have the greatest impact on reducing community risk?
Answer. FEMA could work with communities--particularly those that
face heightened risk of natural perils and have high levels of
socioeconomic vulnerability--to develop community-wide resilience
projects that can be put into place should funding--through federal
programs or private sector investment--become available. FEMA, along
with the Army Corps of Engineers and other relevant federal departments
and agencies, can provide technical assistance by collaborating with
State Hazard Mitigation Officers and local officials to develop such
projects. Congress can consider additional funding to support technical
assistance for such communities.
To the extent Congress enacts a Community Resilience Development
Zone program with a related bond program--as referenced in my March
18th testimony--or a community wants to apply for BRIC funding in the
future, pre-planned projects benefiting from technical assistance from
federal agencies and departments would be particularly useful.
Question 7. What actions should federal agencies take to help the
nation achieve greater disaster resilience? For example, what
opportunities exist for federal agencies to ``mainstream'' risk
reduction, by integrating disaster resilience goals and activities into
all their missions and initiatives?
Answer. All government programs and investments that have bearing
on the built environment should take natural disaster resilience into
account, such that federally funded projects need only be built once
during a generation. The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
(FFRMS), which requires that federally funded projects be resilient to
flood hazard, exemplifies this approach. The common-sense purpose of
the FFRMS is to provide reasonable assurance that the American taxpayer
need not pay twice for the same project. Congress should enshrine the
FFRMS in statute so it cannot be revoked by executive order, and expand
it to require that federally funded projects be designed and built for
resilience to other significant natural perils, including high winds
and wildfire.
Government coordination on resilience and risk reduction--such as
what already occurs at the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group
(MitFLG)--can help integrate disaster resilience and activities into a
broader set of governmental missions and initiatives. The National
Mitigation Investment Strategy, developed by the MitFLG, is one example
of this type of coordination. In addition, the nation would benefit
from the development of a National Climate Resilience Strategy, which
should focus specifically on building climate resilience into
communities, services, built infrastructure, and natural and working
lands. Like the FFRMS but with a broader focus, such a strategy could
assess the expenditures and programmatic decisions of every federal
agency--including procurement, grants, and loans--through a climate
resilience lens.
Question 8. The BRIC program offers the opportunity for the nation
to make sizable investments in disaster risk reduction. How can FEMA
administer BRIC to ensure effective reduction of risk to whole systems,
communities, and regions rather than as a ``pre-disaster mitigation on
steroids'' that invests more money using the same fragmented, stove-
piped, and parochial approaches that historically has failed to result
in significant overall risk reduction or address the nation's most
significant infrastructure and community risks?
Question 9. We are just beginning to assess the response to the
2020 BRIC grant cycle. Can we already identify areas which need to be
improved or challenges that need to be addressed?
Answer. This response refers to Questions 8 and 9.
FEMA has a tremendous opportunity to make BRIC the flexible,
creative, simple, and transformative program it was envisioned as to
drive resilience on a systemic basis. The following approaches can help
optimize BRIC to meet the needs of communities across the country.
Encourage community-wide participation in resilience.
FEMA should use BRIC to encourage and incentivize holistic approaches
to SLTT disaster risk reduction that bring a variety of community
stakeholders into the planning and carrying out of resilience-enhancing
projects and programs. Resilience is not solely an emergency management
issues--community disaster reduction must also include input from
stakeholders representing housing, public works, transportation, and
other forms of infrastructure. FEMA should use the BRIC application
process to encourage SLTTs to bring together these stakeholders to
develop projects that improve community resilience holistically.
Additionally, FEMA should ensure that BRIC funding goes to support
projects that improve resilience to all natural hazards--including
wildfire and wind--and not just flood projects.
Improve access and equity. Too many communities lack the
technical capability to develop projects that would qualify for BRIC
funding and the financial capacity to pay the 25% state cost-share for
BRIC funding. This lack of capability and capacity may create a
significant barrier for underserved communities with small tax bases
and fewer resources in taking advantage of the program--an inherently
inequitable outcome that runs contrary to the purpose of BRIC. Congress
can address this issue by funding additional technical assistance for
underserved communities and by allowing greater flexibility for the
state cost-share of BRIC funds (i) by allowing states to buy down their
share through resilience-advancing actions like smart land use and
modern building codes, and (ii) by allowing SLTT entities to partner
with private and philanthropic sources to pay for some of the cost
share. While SLTTs should always have some skin in the game, greater
flexibility in putting together the state cost-share will make BRIC
more meaningful for underserved communities and, thus, more equitable.
Encourage residential resilience. The BRIC program could
be better calibrated to fund residential resilience projects. This
could be accomplished through the creation of a pilot program to
establish residential resilience grant programs and by streamlining the
application process to make it easier for projects involving multiple
structures to qualify for funding by instituting a benefit cost
analysis (BCA) waiver for SLTT initiatives that fund certain kinds of
residential resilience projects.
Integrate Stafford Act funding. BRIC and HMGP have
similar resilience goals and more could be done to integrate how the
programs operate and fund resilience projects. Successful BRIC
applicants should be able to access HMGP funds to spend down unused
funds in the post-disaster program--this will alleviate challenges
associated with BRIC oversubscription. Additionally, if HMGP funds
expire, they should automatically roll over to BRIC to provide
additional funds for that program.
Question 10. State and local officials often mention the challenges
they face in implementing and enforcing codes, largely due to a lack of
resources. What more could the federal government do to help states and
communities overcome this hurdle?
Question 11. In November 2020, a FEMA study found that over a 20-
year period, cities and counties with modern building codes would avoid
at least $32 billion in losses from natural disasters, when compared to
jurisdictions without modern building codes. What steps can FEMA take
to further promote and help communities adopt modern building codes?
Question 12. We know that the adoption of the latest edition of the
building code gives the greatest return on investment--$11 for every $1
invested. What can be done federally to incentivize states to adopt and
enforce model statewide building codes?
Answer. This response refers to Questions 10, 11 and 12. A
mitigation provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 included new
Public Assistance cost-share incentives for states to invest in
resilience, including an increased federal share (up to 10 percent
more) for Stafford Act funding to states and territories that undertake
eligible mitigation actions like adopting current building codes.
Congress can amend the Stafford Act to give FEMA the flexibility to use
a portion of the cost-share for all disaster relief and mitigation
programs as a tool to encourage strong building codes and other pro-
resilience actions by SLTTs.
In addition, Congress can amend the Stafford Act to direct FEMA's
BRIC program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to create set-
asides to incentivize new state-level building code enactment,
modernization, and enforcement. These funds should target the creation
and expansion of building code activities, not simply fund what is
ongoing in given jurisdiction.
Question 13. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
Answer. The FEMA Building Codes Save report makes clear that the
adoption of the latest edition of the building code gives the greatest
return on investment--$11 for every $1 invested. Legislation requiring
that federal investments in infrastructure meet current, consensus-
based building codes and be resilient to knowable natural hazard risks
would provide an assurance that the American taxpayer need not pay
twice for the same project. In some instances, consensus-driven model
building codes may not provide the greatest appropriate protection from
knowable risks such as high winds or wildfire. Where available,
Congress should mandate the use of science-based resilience standards--
such as IBHS's FORTIFIED standards--to ensure that federally-funded
infrastructure only needs to be built once during a generation.
Question 14. It seems that even across FEMA's programs, there is
not the uniform application of consensus-based codes and standards
(Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the
National Flood Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent
application across the numerous federal programs that drive investments
in resilience and mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive
orders effectively reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management
Standard. Should there be a legislative requirement that the
investments of all federal funds in built infrastructure follow these
foundational flood requirements?
Answer. Legislation is more stable and long-lasting than executive
order. The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) represents an
important principle: that federally funded projects should be built to
withstanding knowable risks, so they last for at least a full
generation. By passing legislation consistent with FFRMS, Congress
would enshrine this principle in statute and protect it from future
revocation by executive order. However, flood is not the only known
natural peril that endangers federally funded projects. Congress should
go beyond the FFRMS to require that all federally funded projects be
designed and built for resilience to all knowable natural hazard risks,
including high winds and wildfire.
Question 15. Can you please comment on the work that IBHS is doing
to protect Americans who live in the Midwest and other inland areas
from the weather disasters that affect these areas of the country?
Answer. IBHS research into wind, wind-driven rain, and hail are all
very relevant to Americans who live in the Midwest and other inland
areas. IBHS research has taught us that wind is wind--whether the wind
is associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, or severe convective storms.
The same lessons that hurricane coast has learned over years of
landfalling hurricanes can protect communities from high winds in
severe thunderstorms, derechos, and tornadoes. Wind will attack a home
or business and find the weakest element. Once wind begins to attack a
home, it often leads to a cascade of damage including costly water
intrusion. These high winds can push a garage door inward, allowing
pressure to build inside the garage and push up on the roof and
surrounding walls--often resulting in major damage to the home and
displacing families.
IBHS also has invested resources in better understanding the way
that hail damages homes and other structures. We developed a roof
shingle hail impact test to provide insights into the performance of
shingles labeled as impact resistant. Homeowners in the Midwest and
inland areas subject to hailstorms can use the IBHS shingle hail impact
performance ratings to make informed decisions when they replace their
roof or build a new home.
Separately or together, wind, rain and hail can cause significant
damage to roofs and homes. In response, IBHS developed the FORTIFIED
Home--High Wind & Hail resilience standard, which--in addition to
meeting the requirements set out in IBHS's FORTIFIED Roof resilience
standard--requires that the roof use high performing impact-resistant
shingles rated good or excellent by IBHS. These actions can narrow the
path of damage and reduce disruption and displacement so often caused
by these storms.
Question 16. Can you give some examples how federal legislation
could draw upon the work of IBHS to help protect Americans from the
weather disasters they face today, and the weather effects of climate
change?
Answer. IBHS delivers top-tier science and translates it into
action so we can prevent avoidable suffering, strengthen our homes and
businesses, inform the insurance industry, and support thriving
communities. One of the ways we translate our science into action is
through the development of beyond-code resilience standards (e.g.,
FORTIFIED Home and Commercial) and mitigation guidance documents (e.g.,
our Wildfire Ready Guide, Thunderstorm Ready Guide, and Hurricane Ready
Guide). Federal legislation could draw upon these standards and guides
to structure resilience programs. For instance, the proposed Disaster
Savings and Resilient Construction Act explicitly references FORTIFIED
as meeting the resiliency requirements needed to qualify for a tax
credit. FORTIFIED could also be used as one component to a legislative
``building back better'' requirement for post-disaster relief programs
like HUD's Community Disaster Block Grant-Disaster Relief program.
Question 17. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
partnerships help educate and promote resilience and overcome potential
obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing in
resilience?
Answer. In my March 18th testimony, I highlighted the importance an
``all of the above'' approach to strengthening climate change
adaptation and residential resilience. This approach includes a need
for creative partnerships between the private sector and public sector.
One example of this kind of collaboration is the analytical tool
developed by the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA), using
federal data, that I referenced in my oral and written testimony. This
tool allows the private and public sector to identify communities that
have high exposure to natural perils and high levels of socioeconomic
vulnerability. Using this tool, Congress could establish programs that
encourage private sector financing of resilience projects that could
make a meaningful difference for those communities, particularly when
paired with government programs in the affordable housing, pre-disaster
mitigation, and economic development space that also seek to strengthen
resilience for families, businesses, and communities. Creativity in not
just educating consumers but layering different funding opportunities
for communities that need the most help is an important way we can
collectively increase resilience and adapt to climate change.
Question 18. Is there a role for the insurance industry to help
bridge the coverage gap, provide risk identification and data, and
leverage resources to help communities successfully mitigation disaster
risks?
Answer. Yes. The insurance industry has the expertise and capacity
to work with communities all over the United States to help bridge the
coverage gap, provide risk identification and data, and leverage
resources to help communities successfully mitigation disaster risks.
However, Congress should reconsider existing programs which
disincentivize SLTTs from taking full advantage of private market
insurance solutions. FEMA funding should not take the place of
insurance.
Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Roy E. Wright, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety
Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
a. What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
standards?
Answer. The time following a natural disaster, particularly one
which displaces a family, is the worst time to contend with government
bureaucracy. The process by which homeowners apply for post-disaster
relief from FEMA, HUD, and SBA should be simplified and streamlined.
Congress can direct these agencies and departments to develop a single
application and tracking process to support Americans seeking
government aid when they are most vulnerable.
b. Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
Answer. Too often, the FEMA mitigation acquisition program for
residential structures takes too long. These choices, often difficult
for a homeowner, are best made immediately after the disaster--before
major repair and rebuilding activities begin. Speed matters. If a
homeowner has already rebuilt, the incentive to participate in the
acquisition program fades. If the residential acquisition strategy was
implemented within 30 days of the disaster, survivors would be able to
use the authorized Individual Assistance programs for temporary housing
needs.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to Velma
Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer, Flood-Prepared Communities
Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts
Question 1. How can the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
better help communities identify and implement hazard mitigation and
disaster resilience efforts that will have the greatest impact on
reducing community risk?
Answer. Given that flooding events have long been the most common
and costly natural disasters in the United States and that the science
in this field is advancing rapidly, Pew recommends that FEMA prioritize
improved information sharing in this area. Most importantly, FEMA
should work to provide an initial or preliminary set of complete flood
maps for communities all across the country and to assure that every
community has the opportunity to engage in a local RISK MAP public
meeting.
Basic information about flood risk is a fundamental building block
for resilience--the means by which communities can understand the
extent of their existing vulnerabilities as well as the factors that
may exacerbate or ameliorate those vulnerabilities over time. Armed
with a recognition of the dynamic nature of flood risk, a deeper
understanding of current risks, and a sense of what factors drive the
risk for a given community, local and state decision-makers can address
existing problems and safeguard the community from future disasters,
choosing sensible locations for new public infrastructure investments,
adopting appropriate land use and zoning controls, and selecting the
adaptation or mitigation actions that will provide the greatest
benefits.
FEMA's National Flood Mapping Program, authorized by Congress as
part of NFIP reform in 2012, mandates that a complete set of flood risk
data be provided to communities. This includes 100-year and 500-year
flood elevations in all areas that potentially could be developed as
well as residual risk information as it relates to flood control
structures and dams (like dam failure inundation mapping) and future
conditions information. Pew believes that if communities were provided
what Congress has mandated, they would begin to have a clear picture of
overall flood risk. Unfortunately, what FEMA is providing communities
today is not complete. While the Agency does a credible job in
maintaining currency of existing flood hazard data, it struggles to
provide new flood hazard data in areas that have not yet been mapped
and has not yet begun to provide either residual risk or future
conditions data.
Such a mapping effort would require substantial increases in
funding. In 2019, FEMA testified that based on current appropriations,
they cannot provide complete flood maps for all communities in the
nation. With only about one-third of the nation's land area currently
mapped for flood hazards, expanded coverage across the country would be
major undertaking--something of a moonshot for FEMA's mapping program.
For some areas, then, it may be reasonable to allow for a departure
from the most sophisticated and detailed methods of hydrologic and
hydraulic analysis that precede formal adoption of flood maps by local
governments. Instead, the Agency may be able to use base level
engineering or other methods appropriate on a broad geographic scale to
build the understanding of flood risk in areas where little knowledge
exists. See, for example, the information available to supplement
official flood map information in FEMA region 6: https://
webapps.usgs.gov/infrm/estbfe/ .
Question 2. What actions should federal agencies take to help the
nation achieve greater disaster resilience? For example, what
opportunities exist for federal agencies to ``mainstream'' risk
reduction, by integrating disaster resilience goals and activities into
all their missions and initiatives?
Answer. The goal of ``mainstreaming'' adaptation and risk reduction
is an important one, not only for federal agencies but also for states,
local communities, non-profit institutions and businesses of all sizes.
Ultimately, policies should drive not just a certain number of
resilience projects or actions but the creation of a resilience culture
in which planning for future disasters is incorporated into the range
of decision-making regarding where and how to build.
To create this culture of resiliency, the Federal government can
lead by example, establishing resiliency leadership positions within a
multitude of agencies, from the White House on down, including, for
example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as the
Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Commerce, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and assuring that resilience personnel work collaboratively,
communicate with regularity, and share scientific knowledge and the
lessons learned from disaster experience. In our view, those positions
will be effective only if they are adequately resourced and provided
with the authority and staffing to assure that resilience objectives
and strategies can be integrated into the day-to-day decision-making
within those agencies.
An important report released in 2010 offers a perspective on this
point of integration. Under contract to FEMA, the American Planning
Association looked at the extent--or the lack thereof--to which local
hazard mitigation plans were actually integrated into key local
decision frameworks. The study demonstrated that many of the hazard
mitigation plans that had been produced to that point had,
unfortunately, been essentially ignored as the same communities updated
comprehensive plans, adopted zoning and subdivision requirements, and
laid out plans for capital spending on infrastructure and economic
development. Many plans reviewed--though they served to qualify
communities for federal disaster assistance and provided a basic
assessment of local vulnerabilities--were relegated to bookshelves and
files, rather than used as guideposts to improve local decision-making.
While this study was specific to local planning, it illustrates
that challenge for all levels of government and what we would hope the
federal government will model for others: Resiliency is not
accomplished simply by report production and appointments. It requires
an ongoing commitment to assessing and understanding risks, including
the trajectory of future risks, and to making decisions and deploying
resources that will mitigate against those risks. It must also be an
iterative process--with decision-makers taking care to observe the
results of their choices and improve their adaptive capacity over time.
Ideally, it will become standard practice--for everything from
designing roads and bridges to locating affordable housing or critical
infrastructure--to consider of an array of plausible hazard scenarios
and to evaluate the consequences of those hazards being realized.
Decision-makers can then opt for the low-regrets solutions that will
protect people and property and allow for speedier recovery when
disasters do occur.
Pew believes that the federal highway legislation passed out of
this Committee last year and the measure passed out of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee offer good models for what will
be required. Though the two bills differ in many aspects, both include
provisions that weave disaster preparedness into the existing fabric of
long-range transportation planning and asset management. It is the
integration of resilience factors into the everyday decision-making of
federal programs that is needed, not simply the creation of new,
isolated silos.
For the Environmental Protection Agency, this may mean working with
states to integrate resilience assessments and actions into the
intended use plans for water and wastewater utility spending; for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, collaboration with states
and localities to assure that the consolidated plans that set
priorities for affordable housing and community development fully
incorporate data on current and future hazards and include needed
protection strategies; for the Office of Management and Budget, a
review of the methods used to judge cost-effectiveness of projects and
spending with multiplying benefits achieved far into the future or
those resolving long-standing social equity problems. For the Small
Business Administration, targeted education and assistance to small
scale entrepreneurs to help them safeguard their investments and their
employees in the event of disasters. Again, we would expect different
solutions in different agencies, and those diverse responses might well
be a sign of successful integration.
Question 3. Fewer than 40 percent of FEMA-funded Public Assistance
projects have included a mitigation component during the period 2010 to
2018. What can FEMA do to incentivize state and local officials to
incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-damaged
facilities?
Answer. In our view, the most important figure may not be the
percentage of Public Assistance projects recorded as containing a
mitigation component. The more troubling numbers are the overall
statistics that show increasing demands on the permanent work under the
Public Assistance program.
Those numbers combined with large demands on the Disaster Relief
Fund overall and the backlog of commitments under the Federal Highway
Administration's Emergency Relief program, tell us that too many public
assets, including roads, fire stations, schools, and utilities, have
not been planned and built in a fashion that allows them to continue
functioning or quickly return to functioning following a natural
disaster. The demand for repair and rebuild monies also indicates that
many of these assets are either uninsured or underinsured. The United
States has, as the National Institute for Building Sciences says, an
enormous ``resilience gap''--a growing gap cannot be filled solely with
federal assistance. We see multiple opportunities for Congress and the
Administration to encourage states and localities to take more
initiative in this area.
First, FEMA should assure that any rebuilding or major repair work
to be accomplished with the aid of Public Assistance dollars will
follow, at a minimum, the latest consensus building codes. Compliance
with the latest building codes is a common-sense essential for enhanced
resiliency.
Pew also believes that federal tax dollars should be conditioned on
going beyond current codes. As laid out in H.R. 481, the Flood
Resiliency and Taxpayer Savings Act, federal agencies should be working
to assure that projects built with federal support consider not just
today's risk, but the risk that will be encountered over the expected
or hoped-for design life of a facility. Such requirements can not only
assure that federal dollars are not squandered on short-lived,
disaster-vulnerable projects but also compel states and localities to
begin assessing the options for fortifying and protecting existing
critical facilities, roadways, public buildings, and utilities. Even in
cases where a locality does not have the resources at hand to carry out
improvements or needed mitigation before disaster strikes, a pre-
disaster assessment of vulnerabilities and possible solutions may allow
for quicker action on a safer rebuild if disaster strikes. (See support
letter for H.R. 481 here: https://www.pewtrusts.org/
-/media/assets/2021/02/national_support_flood_resiliency_and_taxpayer_
savings_act_of_2020.pdf .)
Related to this point, Pew also recommends that all post-disaster
FEMA teams deployed to help with damage assessments include staff who
are expert in mitigation projects. By identifying mitigation
opportunities early on, even as inspectors are still in the process of
assessing damages and tallying the number of substantially damaged
structures, these experts can address the timing imperatives that drive
many communities to opt for less protective, but faster build back.
Pew also supports efforts to update the disaster declaration
criteria in ways that will reward states that are making significant
commitments of state resources to pre-disaster action and, over time,
will lessen the amount of assistance available to states that choose
not to make those needed investments.
In comments submitted to FEMA in February of this year, Pew
recommended consideration of an indexed approach to declaration
decisions that could incorporate relative disaster risk, social
vulnerability, and a demonstrated commitment to and investment in
mitigation. Given the current concerns around declines in budget
capacity voiced by many states and localities, we also recommended that
FEMA move forward on this topic, not with a final rulemaking, but by
convening a working group of key stakeholders to develop
recommendations and eventual policy changes. The task for such a group
would be to develop workable policy recommendations that put the nation
on an effective path to equitably sharing the challenges and burdens of
natural hazard risk management and preparedness. Ideally, these
policies would manage federal costs while establishing mechanisms that
reward forward-thinking, strategic investments in resilience by state
and local governments. See the Pew comments here: https://
www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2021/02/pew-comments-fema-2020-
0038.pdf
Finally, we would also recommend that the Committee consider
requiring improved record-keeping and reporting on buildings,
utilities, and other assets that suffer repeated damages and require
Public Assistance funding on multiple occasions. Several years ago, the
Federal Highway Administration finalized a rule that requires states to
track and report on repeatedly damaged federal highway segments. (See
an explanation of the requirements of 23 CFR Part 667 here: https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/23cfr667_qa.cfm.) A similar requirement
may be appropriate for other infrastructure assets. This record-keeping
should also cover the extent to which such assets may be uninsured or
under-insured.
Question 4. In the latest Government Accountability Office (GAO)
High-Risk Report, issued early this year, GAO again finds that the
federal government must reduce its fiscal exposure by managing climate
change risks and that it has yet to make measurable progress to reduce
its fiscal exposure to climate change. What do you think the federal
government ought to do to build or rebuild infrastructure so that it is
resilient to future conditions of climate change-related impacts such
as inland and coastal flooding, wildfires, or extreme heat over the
life-cycle of the project?
Answer. Since 2013, the GAO has included the fiscal risks
associated with climate change in its high-risk report series on
significant government vulnerabilities. The most recent report echoes
warnings issued earlier and identifies two key imperatives to reducing
the federal government's fiscal exposure: One is an increase in
resources dedicated to pre-disaster hazard mitigation, and the second
is enhanced state and local disaster resilience. We agree, and we urge
the Committee to consider both sides of this resilience coin.
In our view, the federal government can and should more generously
fund pre-disaster mitigation programs, allowing the National Flood
Insurance Program a higher level of Federal Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
funding that can go toward buyouts of flood-prone structures, for
example, or increasing appropriations to NOAA's National Coastal
Resilience Fund, which can help coastal communities avert flooding
disasters while they also protect the integrity of sensitive coastal
ecosystems. Congress could also initiate and seed new state revolving
loan funds aimed at promoting mitigation and, as this Committee has
done, work to establish new resiliency grant programs within the
Department of Transportation.
At the same time, however, federal policymakers should press their
state and local counterparts to do their part. States and localities
are the key decisionmakers when it comes to land use and, with very few
exceptions, they are the arbiters of where and how new housing
developments, local schools, hospitals, and businesses will be built.
They also benefit directly from long-lived, safe infrastructure and
building within a community, supporting economic development and
quality of life as well as generating local tax revenues. If local and
state governments make decisions and investments that promote unsafe
building in risky areas, however, the need for more mitigation dollars
and more recovery dollars will never subside. State and local
governments must be true partners in resilience with assistance from
the federal government but also with better management of flood and
hazard risks--promoting growth and development in areas that are high,
dry, and safe, not in areas that are at high risk of floods and fires.
Again, we see great value in the framework laid out in H.R. 481 to
accomplish these objectives. By clearly requiring the sponsors of
projects funded in whole or in part with federal dollars to assess and
address future flood risk, federal agencies will promote a vastly
improved resilience culture. Pew also sees a need for new policies
regarding disaster declarations and the availability of funding for
permanent repairs or rebuilding of roadways, utilities, water and
wastewater treatment plants, and public buildings. Over time, states
should be scored and rewarded based on their commitment to smart, safe
building and reasonable mitigation investments.
Question 5. The Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities
(BRIC) program offers the opportunity for the nation to make sizable
investments in disaster risk reduction. How can FEMA administer BRIC to
ensure effective reduction of risk to whole systems, communities, and
regions rather than as a ``pre-disaster mitigation on steroids'' that
invests more money using the same fragmented, stove-piped, and
parochial approaches that historically have failed to result in
significant overall risk reduction or address the nation's most
significant infrastructure and community risks?
Answer. See answer below.
Question 6. We are just beginning to assess the response to the
2020 BRIC grant cycle. Can we already identify areas which need to be
improved or challenges that need to be addressed?
Answer. Given that the new BRIC program closed out its first grant
application period only three months ago, it may be premature to judge
the failings or successes of this program at this point. We are
optimistic, however, that the BRIC framework is a good one that can
give state and local resilience leaders a level of confidence that
federal mitigation dollars will be a more reliable source of
assistance.
As Members know, the Stafford Act's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) has long been the largest source of federal assistance for
mitigation projects. But that mitigation money flows only after a
disaster has occurred--and because the levels of HMGP funding scale off
the size of other disaster expenditures--after the costs of recovery
projects have been tallied. In some instances, disaster-struck states
have opted to use available HMGP dollars in communities other than
those affected by the most recent disaster, but for the most part HMGP
has operated as a post-disaster program.
BRIC's funding levels also scale from the estimated expenditures
associated with disasters, but the funding allotments are not earmarked
for specific states. Instead, those monies go into a fund, and states,
territories, and tribes, along with localities as sub-applicants, may
apply and compete for assistance without having experienced a recent
disaster. By de-linking the funding availability from specific
disasters, the program is able to operate as a true pre-disaster
program, thus opening the door for assistance to states that may
already have done a reasonably good job of mitigating their risks but
hope to do more. And, with FEMA's decision to manage the fund without
drawing it down to zero each year, states, territories, and tribes may
be willing to staff up for mitigation and develop in-house expertise,
rather than relying solely on contract help with large sums are
suddenly available.
The available statistics for this first round of applications
confirm the pressing need for help: While $500 million was available,
FEMA received requests totaling $3.6 billion. Considering matching
funds associated with these requests, the total project costs would
have come in at close to $5.5 billion. While the bulk of the funding
requested was for project costs, about a third of the applications
sought assistance for capacity-building--in our view, a positive sign
that many communities understand the imperative to get smart and get
going on adaptation.
While we would withhold final judgment based only on these broad
numbers, we suspect it may make sense for FEMA to increase the amount
of technical assistance it offers in the next round of applications.
Hopefully, if FEMA sees a pattern of small, under-resourced, or highly
vulnerable communities having difficulty with certain aspects of the
application process, it will conduct special outreach and/or simplify
aspects of the program, such as the benefit-cost calculations.
And, as Pew noted in comments to the Agency as it set up the
program, we are hopeful that funding that goes toward writing or
renewing local or state mitigation plans comes along with greater
scrutiny and pressure to integrate hazard mitigation planning into
comprehensive planning, zoning, and capital improvements planning.
We also agree that broader solutions may be called for in many
instances, and we would note that the FEMA scoring criteria currently
provides for additional credits for collaborative applications. As this
first round of funding concludes, we would also suggest that FEMA also
consider help connect applicants and sub-applicants within a watershed
or region who may share a common risk and may each be better able to
solve their local problems with a regional approach that leverages
knowledge and resources.
Question 7. State and local officials often mention the challenges
they face in implementing and enforcing codes, largely due to a lack of
resources. What more could the federal government to help states and
communities overcome this hurdle?
Answer. See answer below.
Question 8. We know that the adoption of the latest edition of the
building code gives the greatest return on investment--$11 for every $1
invested. What can be done federally to incentivize states to adopt and
enforce model statewide building codes?
Answer. With recent changes to the Stafford Act, Congress has
allowed for more federal resources targeted at building code adoption
and enforcement. FEMA may now assist local governments post-disaster
when the tasks of inspections and permitting can overwhelm a community
that has suffered major damage but has limited capacity in a building
department. The law is also clear that FEMA may consider local
commitments to adopting and enforcing the most recent code versions as
it provides financial and technical assistance to applicants. In our
view, these were appropriate and useful changes.
FEMA also incentivizes adoption and enforcement of building codes
through its Community Rating System (CRS), which provides discounts in
flood insurance to policyholders based on the activities of the local
government, including the ratings independently released as the
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS). These ratings
produced by Verisk's Insurance Services Office (ISO) consider the level
of code adoption and enforcement. (See, for example, FEMA's CRS
guidance https://crsresources.org/manual/ and a summary report on state
BCEGS https://www.isomitigation.com/siteassets/downloads/iso-bcegs-
state-report_web.pdf.)
We also support efforts to ensure that federal dollars are used
only for projects that incorporate, at a minimum, the most recent
consensus-based codes and standards, and we applaud states and
localities that have taken steps to incorporate or promote even
stronger requirements, including higher freeboard standards and
stronger roofing requirements. Alabama, for example, uses its
Strengthen Alabama Homes program to provide grant funding to residents
of Mobile or Baldwin counties to make improvements to the FORTIFIED
HomeTM standards Mobile or Baldwin Counties (https://
www.smarthomeamerica.org/resources/strengthen-alabama-homes), and New
York City has released Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines (https://
www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/
NYC_Climate_Resiliency_Design_Guidelines_v4-0.pdf) that will help the
City ensure that City-funded infrastructure and facilities are built
withstand the future impacts of extreme weather and climate change.
Unfortunately, however, incentives as well as significant outreach
and technical materials produced and disseminated from through FEMA's
Building Sciences programs, have not yet led to an adequate nationwide
commitment to building code adoption and enforcement. As a recent
report from FEMA's National Advisory Council notes:
``Pushback from builders and manufacturers that benefit
financially or otherwise from weaker building codes have
stunted inclusion of some disaster-resistant provisions.
Despite FEMA's positive efforts to strengthen consensus model
building codes and standards over time, the Agency is ill-
equipped to engage in a sustained way as building code adoption
issues threaten the growth of resilience in communities across
the U.S.''
The Council's assessment is a troubling one, as is the statistic
they cite showing that nearly 70 percent of communities facing hazards
fall short in code adoption and use. That is why we support not only
the continuation of appropriate incentives and widespread sharing of
technical information but also clear requirements for code-compliance
for any project using federal resources. As discussed earlier, Pew also
supports the possible lowering of rebuilding assistance to states and
communities that fail to act on code adoption and enforcement.
Question 9. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
Answer. Pew fully supports clear requirements for new construction
or major reconstruction with federal funding to
1) follow, at a minimum, the latest consensus-based codes and
standards; and
2) account for hazards that are anticipated to impact those
facilities over their excepted lifetimes, incorporating protective
features to better manage that risk.
The framework of H.R. 481 offers a common-sense approach for
addressing future flood risk. For flooding hazards, it provides an
approach for identifying areas of likely future risk or, where there is
inadequate information, incorporating a modest safety factor into
decision-making. This approach will be particularly important in areas
projected to be impacted by sea level rise, increased frequency and
intensity of storms, and significant levels of erosion.
Question 10. It seems as if even across FEMA's programs, there is
not the uniform application of codes and standards (Public Assistance,
Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the National Flood
Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent application across the
numerous federal programs that drive investments in resilience and
mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive orders effectively
reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. Should there be
a legislative requirement that the investments of all federal funds in
built infrastructure follow these foundational flood requirements?
Answer. Pew strongly supports application of up-to-date codes and
standards for all new construction and the enactment of H.R. 481 as a
durable, common-sense approach to addressing future flood hazards. We
urge Congress not to miss the opportunity to assure that newly built
infrastructure is built to last, and we believe you can do so by
assuring that any allocations of new funding immediately trigger
requirements for forward-looking hazard assessments and protective
designs and construction. In our view, such requirements are important
to public health and safety and fiscally responsible.
Question 11. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
mitigation? How can those be overcome?
Answer. For flooding, the problem is not simply one of historical
settlement patterns and the natural affinity that many have for
waterside living. Multiple additional factors work against residential
resiliency, including
a long and continuing resistance to updated building codes;
serious misunderstandings about the nature and uncertainty of
flood risks;
inappropriate price signals; and
decision-making frameworks that focus solely on the short term.
One of the most frequent arguments against protective building code
adoption and enforcement is that code requirements will make new
housing unaffordable. This is an argument that has been proven wrong
over and over by flood events. The argument assumes that the primary or
sole focus should be the selling price of a home and contends that
because code compliance has the potential to raise the construction
price by some increment, codes create problems. What this argument
ignores, however, is the fact that the cost of home ownership is not
simply the price of a house. The cost of home ownership includes the
purchase price, but it also includes the cost of living in,
maintaining, and insuring that home throughout the lifetime of
ownership. In our view, an ``affordable'' home that is subject to
recurrent flooding or situated in a dangerous surge or landslide area
is not truly affordable, when its residents must evacuate to safety,
lose their belongings, and make costly repairs, often multiple times.
On this point, states should work to assure that all communities
adopt and enforce up-to-date codes, and federal funding should not
support projects that fail to meet current codes or fund new unsafe
construction located in known high hazard zones.
Another obstacle derives from misinterpretations of flood maps and
misunderstanding regarding the 1-percent-annual-chance or so-called
100-year floodplain. While many people, including policymakers, see
this as a of the worst-case flood or a prediction, it is neither. The
designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) depict the land areas
that would be inundated by a flood with an estimated one percent chance
of occurring in any given year--an imaginary event based on past storms
and the land uses existing at the time the map is created. The lines on
the map do not represent a point at which all major flooding would be
expected to stop, and the one percent probability actually translates
to a one in four chance of flooding over the 30-year term of many
mortgages. The government's continued emphasis and reliance on these
SFHAs as flood forecasts oversimplifies the task of understanding flood
risk, creating confusion and complacency about managing that risk.
To address this obstacle, Pew supports adding more information to
flood maps, including information on future risks, and new requirements
for disclosure of information on past flooding to allow consumers to
make sensible decisions before making financial commitments to
mortgages or leases. FEMA's new insurance rating methodology, Risk
Rating 2.0, will also improve public understanding of flood risk and
correct the misleading price signals linked to current and past NFIP
pricing.
An additional obstacle is one that FEMA's National Advisory Council
has discussed. The Council's 2019 report (https://www.fema.gov/sites/
default/files/2020-08/
fema_nac-report_11-2019.pdf) points out that the use of a seven percent
discount rate for assessing the benefits of future savings from flood
damages drives decision-makers to reject valuable and needed pre-
disaster mitigation projects. This requirement, instituted long ago by
the Office of Management and Budget, is one that should be lowered to
more effectively support effective, long-term mitigation projects that
will reap savings over time.
Question 12. Prioritizing mitigation and resilience creates a
significant opportunity for future infrastructure investment. As
Congress is poised to consider a comprehensive infrastructure package,
how can we ensure that those investments also foster disaster
resiliency? How to we make sure all new infrastructure is resilient?
Answer. Pew supports clear requirements for federally supported
projects to be planned and designed to address future risks and, at a
minimum, to be built in compliance with up-to-date codes and standards.
In addition, it may be useful for legislative language specific to
certain types of infrastructure to include references to recommended
safeguards or approaches, for example, safe rooms for schools in
hurricane or tornado prone areas; backup power capacity for critical
facilities; or use of the Department of Transportation's Vulnerability
Assessment Scoring Tool for roadway projects.
On this point, it may also be useful for the Committee to confer
with experts from FEMA's Building Science Branch, which has long
partnered with other organizations such as the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the National Institute for Building Sciences,
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and the Institute
for Business & Home Safety to develop and disseminate important
technical information and guidance. Their ``Catalog of FEMA Building
Science Branch Publications and Training Courses,'' (https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
2020-07/fema_p787_catalog_2016.pdf) may be a good starting point for
useful guidance of better protecting newly funded assets like
hospitals, schools, water utilities, and multi-family housing.
Question 13. What actions can Congress take that would be most
effective in supporting the resilience of low- and moderate-income
families?
Answer. Pew strongly supports enhanced flood risk disclosure as a
means of helping all families, particularly those with low- and
moderate-incomes, make sensible decisions about where to live and how
to protect themselves from flood losses.
When provided with useful risk information, including information
about past flooding events, prospective homebuyers can consider
alternative neighborhoods, purchase flood insurance, and/or investigate
mitigation options, such as landscaping improvements, building
elevation, flood vents, or special placement of electrical or
mechanical equipment. An informed buyer who has not yet finalized
financing may be able to roll the costs of flood-resiliency
improvements into a long-term loan that will protect the structure and
result in lowered insurance rates. For renters, full flood knowledge
can allow for the same sort of informed decision-making. The individual
with mobility issues may choose a safer location, for example, and more
individuals may decide that an insurance policy to cover loss of their
belongings in a sensible and affordable safeguard.
Legislative proposals offered in past sessions of Congress tied new
flood loss disclosure requirements directly to the National Flood
Insurance Program, but Members of this Committee may also wish to
consider disclosure obligations within the context of new federal
investments in housing.
Additional mitigation support for low- and moderate-income families
might also include enhanced funding for pre- and post-disaster
mitigation actions. For low-income families hit by disasters and
anxious but unable to move, such assistance might be increased by
allowing for application of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Act (URA) to more federal buyout offers. Offers
made under URA or potential new requirements could include additional
relocation assistance when payment for the market value of a property
is not sufficient to move the family into a safe and affordable
alternative home.
Question 14. In its recent equity report, FEMA's National Advisory
Committee stated that throughout the entire disaster cycle, communities
that have been underserved stay underserved, and thereby suffer
needlessly and unjustly. How could FEMA better target federal
assistance to communities of low- to middle-income, and communities who
have been historically and disproportionately disadvantaged?
Answer. As Roy Wright with IBHS noted in his testimony to the
Committee, the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA) has developed a
tool that leverages publicly available data to depict the geographic
intersect of natural hazards and socio-economic vulnerabilities. Their
work builds on that of the National Risk Index and would allow for
identification of some of the communities and neighborhoods that may be
in most need of assistance. In some cases, the history of these areas
may have roots in the segregationist policies that ``redlined'' people
of color or immigrants outside of desirable areas and neighborhoods.
(See, for example, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-flood-risk-
redlining/ .) Some of these areas may also have missed out on
opportunities for hazard investments due to continuing benefit-cost-
analysis policies that prioritize the value of structures protected for
selection of flood control or mitigation priorities.
To address these inequities, FEMA should look to incorporating
equity considerations into its grant assistance scoring and, as
necessary, adjust its approaches to benefit-cost analyses. If the
Agency determines that it lacks authority in this area, then Congress
should consider new authorities and directives to the Agency. Congress
might also consider directly targeting enhanced federal assistance to
these areas and working to leverage these investments with private
mitigation support through tax credits or other incentives.
Question 15. According to the First Street Foundation there are
nearly 4.3 million homes across the U.S. with substantial flood risk
that would result in financial loss. The analysis indicates that if
these homes were to be insured against flood risk through the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the rates would need to increase to
cover the risk today, and that the cost of expected annual loss of
properties in the next 30 years will grow by as much as 61% due to
climate change. Do you think Congress should compel FEMA to develop an
affordability program under the NFIP? If so, how urgent is the need,
especially for low- and fixed income, historically disadvantaged
communities and communities of color?
Answer. In our view, the information available from the First
Street Foundation is a welcome addition to what is readily available to
the public about flood risk. Their analyses and presentations attempt
to provide credible information about the changes in risk that are
likely to occur over time. We believe that this information, along with
more information about past flooding events and claims are important
tools that should be provided to consumers.
As Members of Congress understand, however, flood insurance is made
available and priced on a yearly basis, and while a consumer investing
a significant portion of his or her savings and income in a 30-year
mortgage for a property (or the lender) would be wise to consider how
risk could change over time, the potential for the long-term increase
in risk does not factor into the current year premium. So some of the
First Street information speaks, not to this year's insurance rates and
prices, but to the longer term.
Will rising sea levels, increases in the intensity and severity of
storms, and other land use changes mean that some areas will face
rising threats and likely rising rates in the future? Absolutely. But
providing subsidies or deep discounts in the short term, though it may
help to alleviate today's financial pain, is not a true long-term
solution for those living in these areas. In fact, such subsidies, if
not carefully targeted and provided along with clear information about
that growing level of risk, could worsen the problem--further eroding
the capability of the NFIP to pay premiums and encouraging people to
remain in or move into risky areas.
Pew sees the need for multi-pronged solutions. As we have
discussed, the federal government can help provide good information
about current risks and the drivers of risk to certain areas. This
information is essential to good decision-making about land use and
building requirements imposed at the local or state levels. It can also
help to identify those areas where current practices may be increasing
the level of risk and the areas that should be prioritized for
mitigation. The federal government can also help increase the
resiliency of communities by increasing its own investments in
adaptation and mitigation actions and reward state and local partners
that contribute resources to such projects. In those areas where risks
are growing or already extreme, this may mean helping people to move to
safer locations and restoring the natural ecosystems.
At the same time, FEMA can address the financial pain that some
low-income families feel as they work to keep themselves insured. An
important first step in this regard is the implementation of what FEMA
is calling Risk Rating 2.0. This new rating methodology--the first
serious update of FEMA's pricing models since the 1970s--offers fairer
premiums to those who own modestly priced homes, removing the cross-
subsidies that those policyholders were paying to support those with
larger, pricier homes.
Beyond this, the House Financial Services Committee has a proposal
for targeted insurance assistance to low-income policyholders and a
proposal for a revolving loan fund that could help those families and
their communities take mitigation actions. Both of these helpful
proposals were reported out of Committee in the last session of
Congress on a bipartisan basis. Pew supports the affordability
assistance proposal, not only because it is carefully targeted to low-
income policyholders and less complicated and expensive to administer
than other proposals, but also because it is packaged with additional
investment in flood mitigation.
Question 16. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
partnerships that help educate and promote resilience and overcome
potential obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing
in resilience?
Answer. Several effective private and public partnerships that may
offer good models or simply deserve additional support from Congress.
For example, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's National
Coastal Resilience Fund partnership program ( https://www.nfwf.org/
sites/default/files/2021-03/national-coastal-resilience-fund-fact-
sheet.pdf ) works to restore natural infrastructure in coastal
communities. This program uses regional coastal resilience assessments
to identify lands suitable for restoration that could protect people
and wildlife and minimize the impacts of natural disasters. On-the-
ground work is carried out with support from Congressional
appropriations and collaboration involving NOAA, EPA, and the
Department of Defense, as well as Shell Oil Company, TransRe, AT&T, and
Occidental. Since 2018, the program has enhanced protection to roughly
100,400 properties and 2,500 critical facilities or assets.
Another notable partnership is located in Alabama, where a small
non-profit, Smart Home Alabama, was able to demonstrate the value and
the affordability of IBHS's FORTIFIED standards on Habitat for Humanity
projects in the State's coastal communities. (https://nextcity.org/
features/view/what-alabama-can-teach-you-about-storm-resilience )
Assistance from the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium and from
Allstate Insurance allowed the group, not only to provide residents
with safe housing, but also to demonstrate to others that building to
FORTIFIED standards could be done at reasonable costs, saving money and
lives. Today, Alabama residents who build or retrofit to FORTIFIED
standards receive discounts on the wind portion of their homeowners'
insurance policies, and according to the Alabama Center for Insurance
Information and Research at the University of Alabama, FORTIFIED homes
sell for nearly seven percent more than comparable, non-FORTIFIED
homes. (https://www.smarthomeamerica.org/assets/uploads/UniversityofAL
_Value-Study_FORTIFIEDReport_V2__2.pdf)
Elsewhere, as we noted in written testimony, Enterprise Community
Partners has launched a program with the City of Miami to encourage and
assist the owners of affordable housing to examine the vulnerabilities
of their buildings to climate change and natural disasters. This
program aims to keep affordable housing affordable and safe by helping
these businesses prioritize needed actions and find financing to
support improvement projects.
On a larger scale, it may also be possible for Congress to
incentivize additional private investments into high-risk and high-
social-vulnerability areas using analytics such as that developed by
RAA to identify priority areas for mitigation investments. Federal,
state, and local public funding for infrastructure projects within
identified priority areas could then be leveraged by providing
incentives to the private sector to also invest and contribute to these
projects.
Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Velma Smith, Senior Government
Relations Officer, Flood-Prepared Communities Initiative, The Pew
Charitable Trusts
Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
a. What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
standards?
b. Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
Answer. The question of how best to help the most vulnerable
amongst us is an important one. Numerous studies provide evidence that
disasters take a heavy toll on the well-being of those who are
economically or otherwise disadvantaged--among them the elderly, the
disabled, and those struggling to support their families. Without ready
access to temporary housing or savings to repair homes and cars, many
of these individuals will struggle for many months or years to recover
from disasters. Some will be permanently impacted.
Pew believes we can improve on current approaches to helping the
most vulnerable populations in several ways. In making such
improvements we caution, however, that speed can work against safety in
some respects, and policies must guard against shorter timelines that
simply return families to unsafe conditions.
In terms of the damage assessments, Pew supports the additional
resources that have been made available through recent changes to the
Stafford Act. Additional resources for local governments to staff up
for assessments can now be made available during disaster response. We
also urge FEMA to assure that mitigation experts accompany any federal
teams deployed to help local communities conduct the appropriate damage
assessments. Those experts can help communities identify important
opportunities for fortifying structures or otherwise offering better
protection to damaged neighborhoods.
We would also recommend that Congress work with FEMA to assure that
the Agency can extend or expand the availability of temporary housing
assistance during instances in when repairs or reconstruction may take
a longer time period in order to incorporate improved protections.
Pew has also been looking into the issues surrounding buyouts and
the operation of several state and local programs, including those in
Birmingham, Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; Austin, Texas; and
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina. Our research to date points to
several possible solutions, including easing of certain procedural
requirements for state and local governments that establish effective
ongoing buyout programs. In addition, as a previous response for the
record indicated, application of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Act to certain federally funded buyouts may
be helpful. The experience of Austin, Texas may be instructive here.
Over the years, as Austin has developed its own policies and procedures
and used local funding to supplement buyout offers for low-income
families. (https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/
Auditor/Audit_Reports/
Flood_Buyout_Program__February_2017_.pdf) In a similar fashion, the
State of North Carolina has offered supplemental assistance for buyouts
in certain cases. (https://www.ncdps.gov/news/press-releases/2019/10/
15/state-awards-supplements-
local-governments-buyout-properties%C2%A0flooded )
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to Ben Harper,
Head of Corporate Sustainability, Zurich North America
Question 1. Our water infrastructure has proven time and again to
be vulnerable to be heat and seismic events. We have learned that some
water systems have been contaminated in the wake of wildfire due to
melting pipelines. Given your experience from an engineering and
insurance perspective, what can we do to strengthen key infrastructure
against these risks?
Answer. This very issue was discussed in an article published in
the January/February 2021 issue of Civil Engineering. The article notes
that additional study and research is needed. However, the authors do
make a few suggestions on how water contamination issues may be
addressed. Those suggestions include:
deploying system isolation methods,
deeper burial or the use of protective casing, and
carefully selecting materials in fire-prone areas.
For the Committee's convenience, the article can be read at https:/
/source.asce.org/response-team-investigates-wildfire-damage-to-buried-
drinking-water-infrastructure/.
Question 2. Wildfires in western states have been devastating to
the lives of so many survivors and communities. In the wake of every
fire, we worry about the next one. How can Congress provide new tools
to mitigate against the risk of wildfires and prepare before wildfires
strike?
Answer. In 2019, Zurich conducted a Post Event Review Capability
(PERC) of the 2017 and 2018 California Wildfires (https://
www.zurichna.com/-/media/project/zwp/
zna/docs/kh/wildfire/california-wildfire-
report.pdf?la=en&rev=490b6ac68b5e447a
81430529d1ef40d9&hash=406FCE82EC0568F9C15C374627142B4E).
That review makes several recommendations including:
Using public lands, parks and playing fields to create
buffer zones can reduce community exposure;
Zoning can be used to further reduce exposure by
mandating clustering of the built environment. Creating defensible
space and ensuring transportation networks are interconnected and
appropriately sized can reduce vulnerability;
Parks and recreation centers within the city center can
be designed to provide both recreational value and space to shelter in
place as a last resort when conditions overwhelm the community's other
plans;
Codes can be used to influence building styles, building
materials and landscaping.
As Congress considers comprehensive infrastructure legislation,
projects that are designed and planned to mitigate loss and enhance
community resiliency should be given priority.
Question 3. What do you believe are the most significant steps that
can be taken to better protect individual homes and communities against
wildfire, both for new and existing construction?
Answer. In addition to the recommendations noted previously, the
adoption and enforcement fire resistant building codes is an important
component to making homes and communities more resilient. For example,
chapter 7A of the California Building Code is an excellent first step
in helping communities in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) reduce
their vulnerability. The California code can be a model for other
wildfire prone states.
Question 4. How can FEMA better help communities identify and
implement hazard mitigation and disaster resilience efforts that will
have the greatest impact on reducing community risk?
Question 5. What actions should federal agencies take to help the
nation achieve greater disaster resilience? For example, what
opportunities exist for federal agencies to ``mainstream'' risk
reduction, by integrating disaster resilience goals and activities into
all their missions and initiatives?
Answer. Combined answer to questions 4 and 5:
As referenced in my written testimony, Zurich has conducted 16
PERCS globally. In the United States, we have conducted four (4) such
reports covering flooding events in North Carolina, South Carolina and
Houston; and wildfires in California. The PERC methodology was
specifically designed to turn the lessons learned from the consequences
of disasters into actions that help businesses and communities become
more resilient and recover quickly from devastating events. We
encourage FEMA and other federal agencies to consider adopting a
similar approach. In fact, the PERC model could be adapted to also
conduct a ``Pre-event'' assessment.
Additional information on the completed PERC studies and a manual
that serves as a guide for conducting PERCs are available at Post-Event
Review Capability--Flood Resilience Portal [https://
floodresilience.net/perc/#: :text=The%20award
%20winning%20Post%2DEvent,risk%20management%20and%20catastrophe
%20intervention.]
Question 6. Fewer than 40 percent of FEMA-funded Public Assistance
projects have included a mitigation component during the period 2010 to
2018. What can FEMA do to incentivize state and local officials to
incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-damaged
facilities?
Answer. As noted in written testimony, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) finds strong evidence that climate change is
occurring, that it is influenced by human action, and that it is
leading to changes in extreme weather and climate events. When awarding
funds under its Public Assistance program, FEMA should ensure that
state and local officials are considering the impact of climate change
and future conditions on the damaged facility. And, if needed, provide
assistance to ensure that the facility is repaired in accordance with
the most up to date codes.
Question 7. In the latest Government Accountability Office (GAO)
High-Risk Report, issued early this year, GAO again finds that the
federal government must reduce its fiscal exposure by managing climate
change risks and that it has yet to make measurable progress to reduce
its fiscal exposure to climate change. What do you think the federal
government ought to do to build or rebuild infrastructure so that it is
resilient to future conditions of climate change-related impacts such
as inland and coastal flooding, wildfires, or extreme heat over the
life-cycle of the project?
Answer. Zurich has identified climate change as perhaps the most
complex risk facing society today--it is intergenerational; it is
international; and it is interdependent. Congress should require that
federal agencies consider future conditions and the impact of climate
change in the development, planning, and design stages of federally
funded projects. Several prominent industry groups, including the
American Society of Civil Engineers, have developed the technical
guidance that provides the details with regards to integrating climate
resiliency in infrastructure.
Additionally, federal agencies should explore the use of risk-
transfer opportunities, particularly the use of insurance and
reinsurance. For example, FEMA has transferred over $2 billion of its
flood risk to the private sector by purchasing reinsurance. Through the
use of insurance and reinsurance, federal agencies could transfer some
of the costs associated with climate change from the government
(taxpayer) to willing private sector participants.
Question 8. State and local officials often mention the challenges
they often face in implementing and enforcing codes, largely due to a
lack of resources. What more could the Federal Government to help
states and communities overcome this hurdle?
Answer. Congress could provide tax incentives to individuals and
business to take steps to harden their homes and businesses. For
example, the Disaster Savings and Resilient Construction Act, would
create a $3,000 tax credit for homes and a $25,000 for businesses to
help with resilient construction.
Question 9. In November 2020, a FEMA study found that over a 20-
year period, cities and counties with modern building codes would avoid
at least $32 billion in losses from natural disasters, when compared to
jurisdictions without modern building codes. What steps can FEMA take
to further promote and help communities adopt modern building codes?
Answer. Through its Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) program, FEMA could prioritize projects that are
already subject to modern codes and/or those projects that include the
development of updated codes.
Question 10. We know that the adoption of the latest edition of the
building code gives the greatest return on investment--$11 for every $1
invested. What can be done federally to incentivize states to adopt and
enforce model statewide building codes?
Answer. Congress took an excellent first step in enacting the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, which emphasized pre-disaster
mitigation and allowed funds to be used for the development of
enforcement of consensus-based codes. Considering the response to
FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
program, Congress should consider making additional resources available
for these activities.
Question 11. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
Answer. Yes, it is imperative that modern, consensus-based codes
are used in new construction. I also urge the Committee and Congress to
consider the development and use of a sustainability standard, such as
``ENVISION,'' which was developed by the Institute for Sustainable
Infrastructure (ISI) and Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure
at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design. Done correctly, such
a standard can address sustainability, resiliency, and equity.
Question 12. It seems that even across FEMA's programs, there is
not the uniform application of consensus-based codes and standards
(Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the
National Flood Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent
application across the numerous federal programs that drive investments
in resilience and mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive
orders effectively reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management
Standard. Should there be a legislative requirement that the
investments of all federal funds in built infrastructure follow these
foundational flood requirements?
Answer. Flooding continues to be the most common natural disaster.
Zurich, working with other stakeholders and the property and casualty
industry, supports efforts to enact a federal flood standard. In fact,
we are working with the American Property Casualty Insurance
Association (APCIA) and the Smarter Safer Coalition to support the
Flood Resiliency and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2021.
Question 13. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
mitigation? How can those be overcome?
Answer. Cost is often cited as a major obstacle facing property
owners. As mentioned in my response to question #8, Congress could
provide tax incentives for mitigation.
Question 14. Prioritizing mitigation and resilience creates a
significant opportunity for future infrastructure investment. As
Congress is poised to consider a comprehensive infrastructure package,
how can we ensure that those investments also foster disaster
resiliency? How to we make sure all new infrastructure is resilient?
Answer. As noted previously, Congress should incentivize the
development and enforcement of modern, consensus-based codes; encourage
sound land use planning and ensure transportation networks are
interconnected and appropriately sized to reduce vulnerability.
Further, Congress should require that future conditions and the impact
of climate change be considered in the development, planning, and
design stages of federally funded projects.
Question 15. What actions can Congress take that would be most
effective in supporting the resilience of low- and moderate-income
families?
Answer. As noted in my written testimony, our PERCS have found that
the neediest in society are often neglected before and after disasters,
and sometimes are still recovering from one event when the next one
strikes. This was precisely the case in NC when Hurricane Florence came
during the slow recovery from Matthew. In addition to investing in pre-
disaster mitigation funding, we need to improve risk communication,
ensure have that individuals and business have insurance and,
importantly, have the appropriate coverage. We need to ensure that
mitigation funding is indeed reaching vulnerable populations living and
working in areas vulnerable to catastrophes--that may include expanding
buy out programs.
Question 16. According to the First Street Foundation there are
nearly 4.3 million homes across the U.S. with substantial flood risk
that would result in financial loss. The analysis indicates that if
these homes were to be insured against flood risk through the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the rates would need to increase to
cover the risk today, and that the cost of expected annual loss of
properties in the next 30 years will grow by as much as 61% due to
climate change. Do you think Congress should compel FEMA to develop an
affordability program under the NFIP? If so, how urgent is the need,
especially for low- and fixed income, historically disadvantaged
communities and communities of color?
Answer. Zurich North American does not participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program. However, a fundamental principle of insurance
is that the price of insurance accurately reflect risk. Not only does
proper pricing ensure solvency, it sends important risk signals to the
market and property owners. Rather than obscure the true risk, Congress
should invest in flood mitigation and pre-disaster preparedness,
particularly in communities where investment has historically lagged.
Question 17. What would you say is the most important thing for
policy makers in Congress to do to establish the federal framework to
facilitate the ability of the private sector--through environmental,
social, and governance investments and creative financing and
opportunities--to bring funding and financial resources to communities
and states to invest in cost-effective, risk reducing disaster
mitigation and resilience projects?
Question 18. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
partnerships help educate and promote resilience and overcome potential
obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing in
resilience?
Answer. Combined answer for questions 17and 18--
Building resilient communities will take the combined efforts of
federal, state and local government; the private sector; and individual
property owners. In addition to the use of traditional risk transfer
mechanisms (insurance and reinsurance), as a way to leverage private
investment, Congress could consider approaches such as the Reinsurance
Association of America's Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZ)
proposal.
Question 19. Is there a role for the insurance industry to help
bridge the coverage gap, provide risk identification and data, and
leverage resources to help communities successfully mitigate disaster
risks?
Answer. Yes, insurers play a critical role in assisting
communities, individuals, and businesses recover when catastrophe
strikes. Importantly, the industry also plays a vital role in improving
community preparedness and risk management before the disaster hits.
Risk communication is vital to ensure that individuals and businesses
have insurance, and, importantly have the proper coverage. As a
commercial insurer, Zurich provides extensive risk management, risk
engineering, and loss prevention services to our customers.
Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Ben Harper, Head of Corporate
Sustainability, Zurich North America
Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
a. What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
standards?
b. Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
Answer. When it comes to mitigation programs related to floods,
insurers see a loss of opportunity in these programs being used by
property owners due to the timely and complex bureaucratic process.
Property owners are most receptive to mitigation offers (including buy-
outs) immediately following the disaster. The impediments of the
current lengthy improvement processes often prevent property owners
from taking advantage of these programs. Rather, property owners are
left with the untenable decision to wait months, if not years, without
certainty in their living situation, or accept insurance claims
payments and rebuild in the same high-risk area. A streamlined approval
process for severe repetitive loss properties could allow for an
increase acceptance of mitigation offers, reducing the future burden on
taxpayers and the NFIP that these properties present.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to John C.
Fowke, Chairman, National Association of Home Builders
Question 1. You indicated during the hearing that NAHB, similar to
the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, had done follow-
on studies about how Hurricane Michael affected the Florida Panhandle,
including the importance of building codes. Could you please detail for
us the findings with specific attention to homes built prior to 2000,
prior to 2008, and over the past decade?
Answer. In 2017, regions of Texas and Florida experienced damage
due to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, respectively. The following year,
NAHB commissioned Texas A&M University to determine how building code
editions impacted the amount of damage incurred by residential
structures.
The study found that, in Texas, homes built to the International
Residential Code (IRC) after 2003 performed much better during the
severe weather events than older homes. The study also found that
Florida homes built after 1994 and to the Florida-specific building
code based on the IRC were more resilient to wind damage.
The study also found that building to the IRC (post 2003) was very
effective in preventing the destruction of homes due to wind during
Hurricanes Harvey and Irma and resulted in significantly less damage to
wall and roof coverings and loss of those components while also
minimizing window breakage.
Prior to this study, anecdotal reports, including statements in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's damage assessments and media
coverage, suggested that homes built to the IRC performed well in both
states. However, there was little empirical evidence to support those
claims.
The table below highlights the results from the Texas (Harvey)
analysis. There is a clear change in the results from pre and post
2003. Although the overall sample size of homes exceeded 3,000, the
study did not include forensic analysis of the actual failures (e.g.
heavy wind, debris, installation errors, etc.). NAHB would encourage
FEMA, NIST or NSF to perform a more in-depth analysis to better
understand the failure modes of homes built to the modern (post 2000)
codes to ensure any further changes to the building codes are targeted
to documented problems and recurrence levels and properly cost
justified. NAHB would be willing to participate in the study.
For the complete study, go to: https://www.nahb.org/advocacy/top-
priorities/
building-codes/Construction-Codes-Standards-Research/Damage-Assessment-
from-
Hurricanes-Harvey-and-Irma
Question 2. Wildfires in western states have been devastating to
the lives of so many survivors and communities. In the wake of every
fire, we worry about the next one. How can Congress provide new tools
to mitigate against the risk of wildfires and prepare before wildfires
strike?
Answer. There are number of tools that Congress can provide to help
mitigate the risk of wildfires. First, funding for state and local
foresters, land managers and others to implement forest management
practices, such as selective burning and cutting to improve forest
health, can go a long way toward significantly reducing the intensity
of many wildfires and improve the ability of the fire service to
contain them. Also, Congress can provide funding to assist utilities in
properly maintaining their transformers and transmission lines to
reduce the chances of their equipment contributing to igniting fires.
Second, Congress can provide financial incentives to homeowners to
make existing homes more resistant to wildfires. Replacing existing
roofing or siding with ignition-resistant materials provides a first
line of defense against wildfires. But replacing roofing or siding can
be prohibitively expensive. Helping homeowners cover the upfront costs
of these retrofit through grants and tax credits can reduce damage and
improve safety. Likewise, recognizing these retrofits through insurance
premium reductions or rebates could also make them more cost-effective
and convince homeowners to invest in mitigation.
Third, Congress can help communities and homeowners better
understand their risks and plan and implement effective mitigation
options. Because wildfire is an interdependent risk, as the damage
faced by homeowners is dependent on both their actions and the actions
of their neighbors (and potentially communities), promoting cooperation
and planning, as well as motivating property-level investments, is
vital to reducing damage. Likewise, because many homeowners don't know
where to start or what actions to take to reduce their risks, providing
information on low-cost options and/or technical assistance to guide
consumers to desirable endpoints could be an important key to success.
Question 3. What do you believe are the most significant steps that
can be taken to better protect individual homes and communities against
wildfire, both for new and existing construction?
Answer. States and communities can extend water supply lines to
developments in wildland-urban interface areas to improve the fire
service's ability to protect buildings and people from wildfires and
better contain house fires within originating properties. In addition,
education should be provided for homeowners located within high fire
risk areas on the need to create and maintain ``defensible space''
around their homes. These spaces are designed to slow the rate and
intensity of fires and provide opportunities to suppress them. Examples
of maintenance might include removing dry vegetation, leaves, pine
needles and other combustible materials from such spaces. Homeowners
also need to be educated about the importance of keeping roofs and
gutters clean of leaves, pine needles and other debris and making sure
vents and openings are covered with \1/8\" or smaller mesh to prevent
embers from getting into attics and crawlspaces.
If determined appropriate by a community, the International
Wildland Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) can be adopted, with amendments
as necessary to serve local needs and understanding of risk, to
mitigate the spread of wildfires, and protect people and property from
wildfire exposure. One of the family of I-codes, the IWUIC has as its
objective the establishment of minimum special regulations for the
safeguarding of life and property from the intrusion of fire from
wildland fire exposures and fire exposures from adjacent structures and
to prevent structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels, even in
the absence of fire department intervention.
Question 4. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
Answer. NAHB continues to support the requirement for
infrastructure and public facilities to be built to the latest
published edition of the code as long as the definition of ``latest
published edition'' means either of the two most recently published
editions, but cautions against extending such a requirement beyond
critical facilities.
Further, NAHB urges Congress to ensure that any such requirement to
build to the latest code is further clarified to ensure that
``reference to a specification or standard that incorporate the latest
hazard-resistant designs'' is limited to only the edition(s) of those
specifications or standards that are referenced in the two most
recently published editions of the applicable consensus-based code.
This is critical to ensure clarity and avoid any unintended
consequences for program implementation in the field.
Finally, NAHB strongly believes that State and local governments
must retain authority over land use and their code adoption processes
so they can continue to direct community development and implement the
codes that best fit their jurisdictions. NAHB urges Congress to ensure
that any requirement that structures and facilities be built to the
latest consensus-based building codes be limited to the specific
projects in question and not be unintentionally used to force
community-wide adoption of a specific code.
Question 5. It seems that even across FEMA's programs, there is not
the uniform application of consensus-based codes and standards (Public
Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the National
Flood Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent application across
the numerous federal programs that drive investments in resilience and
mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive orders effectively
reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. Should there be
a legislative requirement that the investments of all federal funds in
built infrastructure follow these foundational flood requirements? If
not, what exceptions do you believe are necessary?
Answer. NAHB remains concerned about implementation of the Federal
Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) due to the potential that many
federal housing and permitting programs the home building industry
relies on to provide affordable housing for all Americans will become
unnecessarily burdened by new and unwarranted federal requirements.
While it is not certain what this administration's implementation of
FFRMS might look like, prior attempts to implement the FFRMS, which
sought to apply new federal flood risk reduction standards to all
federal actions was overly broad and unnecessary. The ripple effect of
such an expanded scope of coverage could impose unnecessary regulatory
requirements and additional red tape for home building, home financing,
home sales, and land development along coasts, rivers, streams, lakes
and ponds. Equally problematic, these additional requirements will
severely hinder housing affordability at a time when there is already a
significant affordable housing shortage.
Question 6. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
mitigation? How can those be overcome?
Answer. NAHB believes it is essential that Congress keep housing
affordability and homeownership at the forefront of any discussions
involving residential resilience. In doing so, Congress is urged to
focus on cost effective mitigation strategies for the existing housing
stock, financial assistance options, and reliance on incentives and
voluntary above-code programs to compel market action and consumer
response.
In doing so, Congress must address the biggest challenges, which
are the initial costs, the need to account for the value of the
upgrades within property assessments and appraisals, and the need for
technical assistance to help property owners understand the needs and
options so they can make the best choices.
Residential mitigation can take many forms, from reinforcing roofs
to installing new siding, elevating electrical equipment to elevating
entire structures. The specific upgrades that are ultimately selected
and performed are dependent upon risk level, type of risk, structure
specifics and cost, among others. Many families, however, have limited
savings and cannot fund the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars
needed to complete most mitigation projects. Although some funding may
be available, the federal aid programs are typically oversubscribed and
payments delayed, making them of limited widespread use. Developing
programs, grants, incentives, insurance rebates or other mechanisms
designed to help homeowners overcome the initial costs could go a long
way toward convincing them to invest in mitigation.
Similarly, revamping appraisal and assessment protocols to
recognize the added value associated with these mitigation efforts is
vital. Under current practice, in most instances, mortgage companies,
appraisers and real estate professionals do not consider the costs or
benefits associated with various disaster mitigation and resilience
projects. This creates a disincentive to take proactive steps to reduce
a home's exposure, as those expenditures are not necessarily considered
to add value. If the improvements are not included in the appraisal or
appraised value of the structure, not only is the buyer uninformed
about the home's qualities, his or her willingness to pay more can be
significantly diminished.
In an effort to spur private investment in efficiency and
resiliency, the value and benefit of above code practices and
mitigation measures should be incorporated into standard real estate
lending practices and real estate listings. By recognizing and
valuating the upgrades, appraisers can consistently give weight to
these improvements, lenders may reconsider qualifying loan ratios,
realtors can promote their benefits, homeowners would get assurances
that the investments they have made will retain value and be recognized
in resale and homes would be more likely to get the upgrades needed to
improve their performance.
Similar to the valuation process and state insurance discounts,
recognizing improved resiliency can also be done by tweaking the NFIP.
Currently, all improvements to fortify a home against flood hazards do
not result in flood insurance premium discounts. For example, in its
``Reducing Flood Risk to Residential Buildings That Cannot Be
Elevated'' document, FEMA outlines several alternative actions that can
be taken in lieu of elevation. Of the measures discussed, however, only
50 percent of them are eligible for flood insurance premium reductions.
Congress should work with FEMA to ensure that all building practices
that mitigate risk and improve resiliency provide homeowners with
clearly understood rate discounts without regard for rating
methodology.
Question 7. What actions can Congress take that would be most
effective in supporting the resilience of low- and moderate-income
families?
Answer. NAHB urges Congress to ensure that programs adopted to
support the resilience of low- and moderate-income families are not
myopically focused solely on the residential structure itself. Truly
effective resilience outcomes will only be achieved when programs look
holistically at the community in which these families live. Residential
resilience relies not only on the home in which families live but on
the community's ability to maintain and continue access to such
lifelines as transportation, electricity, water, food and medical care.
Additionally, Congress can help support these families and the
communities they live in by providing help with funding and technical
assistance needed to ensure mitigation programs are understood and
accessed. These efforts should include a review of the disparate
processes and timelines of various mitigation and support programs to
determine if better alignment will improve understanding and access of
the programs. Congress should also consider establishing an office
similar to the Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate (OFIA), to serve
as a central clearinghouse for homeowners, tenants and communities
facing roadblocks to conducting effective mitigation via federal
programs.
Question 8. What would you say is the most important thing for
policy makers in Congress to do to establish the federal framework to
facilitate the ability of the private sector--through environmental,
social, and governance investments and creative financing and
opportunities--to bring funding and financial resources to communities
and states to invest in cost-effective, risk reducing disaster
mitigation and resilience projects?
Answer. NAHB encourages Congress to focus on creating a framework
to support and facilitate measurable, on the ground improvements, as
well as investments that target first cost financing for mitigation and
resilience projects. While planning is a vital component to improving
resiliency, tangible results oftentimes can better compel additional
action. Likewise, the focus on first cost financing is crucial as many
people cannot afford to purchase a home, much less one that exceeds
current building requirements. Likewise, due to the high initial costs
associated with purchasing and/or installing many above-code resilience
features, many homeowners are unable to finance desired or necessary
mitigation projects. For those seeking to incorporate mitigation and
resilience into construction practices, numerous challenges exist in
obtaining the necessary financing to support their efforts including
access to funding or financing that reflects the value of those
projects.
Question 9. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
partnerships to help educate and promote resilience and overcome
potential obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing
in resilience?
Answer. Partnerships typically grow out of shared interests and
similar goals. One step that the federal government could expand upon
that could lead to new relationships is hosting forums, roundtables, or
other broad gatherings through which participants are able to network
and explore common interests. A key component of the success of such
programs is to ensure all impacted and interested stakeholders are
invited to participate. NAHB held a summit on green home valuation and
invited key industry stakeholders, the Mortgage Bankers Association,
the National Association of REALTORS and the Appraisal Institute to
attend. This event uncovered the need for consistent education, term
definition and messaging around green and energy efficient homes within
the industry to lessen confusion in housing policy, legislation and
valuation. A similar approach among this same group of stakeholders
could help in overcoming obstacles to invest in resilience.
In addition, NAHB has partnered with the National Association of
REALTORS to develop an initiative called ``Home Performance Counts,''
which provides easy access to resources and information for home
buyers, home builders, real estate professionals and consumers on the
potential benefits and value that high-performance building features
can provide. The outreach and education focus of this initiative can
serve as a model for other partnerships to build awareness and promote
investing in resilience.
Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to John C. Fowke, Chairman, National
Association of Home Builders
Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
a. What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
standards?
Answer. Many have recognized that the current federal disaster
programs, while playing a vital role in enabling recovery, are
challenging for all, but even more so for lower-income households.\1\
In addition to providing additional funding, which can be done through
any one of the existing assistance and mitigation programs, other
proactive measures include making HUD's CDBG-DR program a permanently
authorized program or at a minimum, shortening the turnaround time for
fund disbursement; funding technology upgrades and training to equip
FEMA and local communities to quickly complete damage assessments and
improve the pace at which payments can be made; simplifying the
programs and streamlining the associated paperwork burdens that must be
completed to qualify for assistance; and providing technical expertise
to help homeowners better understand what mitigation and/or funding
assistance they may qualify for and what is required to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, for example, Urban Institute Policy Debate: Improving the
Disaster Recovery of Low-Income Families, at urban.org/debates/
improving-disaster-recovery-low-income-families
b. Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
Answer. When considering post-disaster efforts, NAHB urges Congress
to focus on promoting comprehensive community recovery planning that
includes a variety of options and actions to restore the vital
infrastructure and functions of the community as well as the full
spectrum of housing needs. In doing so, state and local governments
must retain the authority to make land use decisions and determine how
best to meet their community redevelopment goals. While mitigation
buyout programs can be a useful tool within a comprehensive housing
recovery plan, there are many other options available to address local
needs. Plans that integrate a full range of housing solutions to assist
local jurisdictions will not only help in speeding up the process of
moving local citizens into permanent long-term housing following an
event, but also serve to help mitigate future risk. NAHB encourages
Congress to reinforce efforts by FEMA to enhance local disaster and
recovery planning to ensure that issues such as housing recovery and
resilience are thought through long before those plans are needed.
Congress should also facilitate the work of State and local
jurisdictions by aligning the planning requirements across all of the
federal agencies to ensure they are working together to achieve risk
mitigation, increased resilience and maintain the necessary balance
between the environment and community development.
[all]