[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 110 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5105-H5110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO CONSTRUCT LEVEES ON CERTAIN
PROPERTIES
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (S. 2039) to allow a State or local government to
construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open
space lands.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 2039
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LEVEES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
(2) the term ``covered hazard mitigation land'' means
land--
(A) acquired and deed restricted under section 404(b) of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(b)) before, on, or after the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) that is located--
(i) in North Dakota; and
(ii) in a community that--
(I) is participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program on the date on which a State, local, or tribal
government submits an application requesting to construct a
permanent flood risk reduction levee under subsection (b);
and
(II) certifies to the Administrator and the Chief of
Engineers that the community will continue to participate in
the National Flood Insurance Program.
(b) Authority.--Notwithstanding clause (i) or (ii) of
section 404(b)(2)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170c(b)(2)(B)), the Administrator shall approve the
construction of a permanent flood risk reduction levee by a
State, local, or tribal government on covered hazard
mitigation land if the Administrator and the Chief of
Engineers determine, through a process established by the
Administrator and Chief of Engineers and funded entirely by
the State, local, or tribal government seeking to construct
the proposed levee, that--
(1) construction of the proposed permanent flood risk
reduction levee would more effectively mitigate against
flooding risk than an open floodplain or other flood risk
reduction measures;
(2) the proposed permanent flood risk reduction levee
complies with Federal, State, and local requirements,
including mitigation of adverse impacts and implementation of
floodplain management requirements, which shall include an
evaluation of whether the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed levee would continue to meet best
available industry standards and practices, would be the most
cost-effective measure to protect against the assessed flood
risk and minimizes future costs to the federal government;
(3) the State, local, or tribal government seeking to
construct the proposed levee has provided an adequate
maintenance plan that documents the procedures the State,
local, or tribal government will use to ensure that the
stability, height, and overall integrity of the proposed
levee and the structure and systems of the proposed levee are
maintained, including--
(A) specifying the maintenance activities to be performed;
(B) specifying the frequency with which maintenance
activities will be performed;
(C) specifying the person responsible for performing each
maintenance activity (by name or title);
(D) detailing the plan for financing the maintenance of the
levee; and
(E) documenting the ability of the State, local, or tribal
government to finance the maintenance of the levee.
(c) Maintenance Certification.--
(1) In general.--A State, local, or tribal government that
constructs a permanent flood risk reduction levee under
subsection (b) shall submit to the Administrator and the
Chief of Engineers an annual certification indicating whether
the State, local, or tribal government is in compliance with
the maintenance plan provided under subsection (b)(3).
(2) Review.--The Chief of Engineers shall review a
certification submitted under paragraph (1) and determine
whether the State, local, or tribal government has complied
with the maintenance plan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2039.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg) be permitted to control the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Senate bill S. 2039 is a bipartisan bill sponsored by
Senators from North Dakota Conrad and Hoeven, which passed the Senate
by unanimous consent in January of this year. This bill will provide a
great deal of help to the citizens of our State.
The text of S. 2039 allows for a process of building permanent levees
on Federal land in North Dakota, with the approval of FEMA and the Army
Corps of Engineers. I want to highlight the unique situation we have in
North Dakota, and this legislation intends to address just that.
First of all, Fargo, North Dakota. It has faced repeated flooding
along the Red River, which runs through the heart of the city. The city
has constructed a permanent levee that runs along as much of the river
as possible. However, over the years, some properties have been bought
out along the riverbank with Federal funds.
{time} 1740
As a result, we have a patchwork of properties that exist along this
levee system with gaps in the system. Recurring flooding along the Red
River requires temporary levees to go up nearly every year only to be
taken down, and what happens, repeatedly, over and over, is a taxpayer
waste of money.
Minot, North Dakota, will have the same problem. As my colleagues
know, Minot faced enormous flooding last spring. Thousands of homes
were lost, and the community sustained hundreds of millions of dollars
in damages. The city of Minot now plans to rebuild a major new flood
protection system, including rebuilding the levees that were in place.
This is in the middle of the city along the Souris River. This means
that Minot will face the same frustration and expense of constructing
and removing temporary levees year after year, just as it is in Fargo.
The solution is to simply permit levee construction on federally
purchased property in these areas of North Dakota, with the approval of
FEMA and the Corps. It's important to note that in both Fargo and
Minot, a levee will be in place regardless of this legislation.
[[Page H5106]]
What this commonsense bill is trying to prevent is the absurdity and
the expense to taxpayers of building and then taking down a temporary
levee every year every time there's a flood.
This bill does contain important restrictions to ensure undue Federal
costs are not incurred. Under this bill, before approving any project,
FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers must first determine that the
levee will be effective in mitigating against the flood risk versus
having an open floodplain, that permanent levee flood protection would
be the most cost effective measure to protect against flood risk and
minimize the future cost to the Federal Government, and also, that the
State or local government seeking to build the levee has provided
adequate, detailed plans for maintenance of the proposed levee and the
State or local government has a detailed finance plan to pay for it.
All of the above must be demonstrated before the construction plan
can be approved. Furthermore, this Federal review itself must be paid
for entirely by the local or State government.
Mr. Speaker, the construction of a permanent levee is far more
fiscally responsible than the annual costs associated each year with
tearing down, building and tearing down these temporary levees. Most
importantly, this legislation eliminates the cost that FEMA and the
Corps of Engineers have already incurred time and time again as they're
forced to build these and tear them down, the temporary levees in the
State of North Dakota.
This legislation provides better stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It
provides sound protections against future Federal expense, and it will
save the local, State and Federal Government money. Most importantly,
it will ensure better flood protection for the communities of Minot and
Fargo in North Dakota.
I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation and reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
With respect to the gentleman from North Dakota, there are some
differences on this bill.
I rise to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S. 2039, a bill that
would increase the likelihood of flooding along the Missouri River that
impacts several States, putting millions of people at risk. This
legislation has not had a hearing in either the House or the Senate,
nor has the public or impacted federal agencies had an opportunity to
weigh in.
The bill goes against longstanding Federal policy that would still
apply to the other 49 States--just not North Dakota. Once Federal funds
are used to relocate communities and buildings out of floodplains, that
land is meant to be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for a use
that is compatible with open space, recreational or wetlands management
practices. This bill would stop that from happening in North Dakota,
despite the fact that the issue was already addressed with specific
allowances for communities in North Dakota in the recently signed into
law Biggert-Waters Flood Reform Act of 2012. This bill that's on the
floor today doesn't require local communities to reimburse the Federal
Government and taxpayers for those previous buyouts.
Without hearings, it's hard to understand why S. 2039 is even
necessary. Mr. Speaker, floods are the most frequently occurring
natural disaster in this Nation. They happen in all 50 States.
According to NOAA, there has been a steady increase in the U.S. of
extreme flooding events. In fact, my home State of Missouri has had its
fair share. In 2008, we faced a 200-year flood. In 1993, it was a 500-
year flood. We're talking about incredibly abnormal levels of flooding
that would only be exacerbated by this bill.
Last year, in St. Louis, we faced millions of dollars in losses
because of weeks upon weeks of flooding. Again, it was a flood that the
Army Corps of Engineers expects to occur every 10 to 25 years. River
barge traffic, transporting billions in crops, were delayed. Riverboat
casinos were closed for 6 to 8 weeks. Estimates of farmland crop damage
was as high as $2 billion.
Missouri was not the only State to suffer. Kentucky saw $5 million in
damage, and 1,300 homes around Memphis were damaged. Mississippi
suffered hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. This devastation
was not from rainfall in Missouri or in the other States affected. It
was created by runoff a thousand miles north in North Dakota.
Increased rainfall in that State leads to flooding downstream in my
State and others. This bill would allow levees to be created that would
greatly increase the chances of that flooding. Rather than exempting
North Dakota from the Stafford Act, we should be returning North Dakota
to a natural state of marshes and wetlands along the river. These areas
absorb significant amounts of water, slow runoff water and minimize the
frequency that streams and rivers reach catastrophic flood levels.
Rather than protecting the environment and letting nature do what it
is designed to do, this bill would set precedent for other States--
increasing catastrophic flood levels across the country and devastating
our Nation's businesses, farms and infrastructure.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to just really make this perfectly clear. This is not
affecting the Missouri River. This is focused on a very flat area in
the eastern part of our State. As was mentioned, this came through the
Senate with unanimous consent. Senators along the Missouri River from
North Dakota all the way down were supportive of this.
The essence of this problem is that we have a levee. This is a
downtown levee that's in a city, and there are gaps there. And what
happens is when there's a flood--and every year we have a recurring
flood--a temporary levee is put in. Trucks come in and clays come in,
it tears it up, and they build it, and as soon as that's done, it's all
torn down again. This is disruptive, and it impacts the natural habitat
there. That is where this is focused to be.
The other thing that is really important here that I would like to
stress, this legislation requires the Corps of Engineers to approve it.
Those of us who have been dealing with the Missouri River know the
Corps management would not approve of anything that would disrupt the
Missouri waterway all the way down.
Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent thing. The reason it's urgent is our
State has had 10,000 people dislocated from 4,000 homes, and these
people had the uncertainty of not knowing where they can rebuild, what
they can do. This will help the city of Minot move forward with their
housing needs. There are 1,400 families that are currently not back in
their homes. They're living in trailers, living with neighbors and
living with friends. They're not sure when these temporary levees go
down what they should do next. That's really the urgency of this bill,
and why that's why it's before you today.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I
will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
{time} 1750
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate
his leadership on this issue. He comes from an area that has seen its
own devastations in terms of flood.
We're talking about a river system where we have engineered the area,
and we have been fighting for years to try and attain an appropriate
balance.
This is not a fiscally responsible approach. It's interesting that it
is opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union,
the American Conservative Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
who have joined in common cause with a wide array of environmental
organizations, as well as the professionals who deal with the
management of floodplains, the Association of State Floodplain
Managers, and a vast array of businesses, particularly those that are
involved with the insurance and reinsurance. This is a prescription for
disaster.
Now, bear in mind that in the transportation bill--recently
approved--there were proposals that were part of the flood issue that
were for five parcels. This legislation--that as my
[[Page H5107]]
friend from St. Louis points out has never had a hearing--would open it
up to some 37,000 units of land in North Dakota. It doesn't restrict
it.
Additionally, it doesn't require that the Federal Government--that
paid for this land to be taken and put in a natural state where it
could absorb the floodplain, the floodwaters--that they get this for
free.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I've worked in flood insurance reform now for over
10 years. The last major flood insurance bill I was coauthor with my
good friend, Doug Bereuter. We worked hard to try and make sure that we
weren't going to subsidize people to live in places where nature has
shown repeatedly that they don't belong, and that we weren't going to
be in a situation where one part of the Federal Government subsidizes
to move the problem downstream.
What we see repeatedly is that, with major river systems that are
fortified, that we try and fight against nature by putting in a series
of levees. What it does is it channels that water, it accelerates and
it moves it downstream and actually makes flooding worse.
Now, it also, in a very perverse way, increases the risk in some of
these areas that get levees, because ultimately there are floods. When
you put a levee in, you give the illusion of safety, and then there's
more development behind the levee. So instead of having natural area
absorbing the runoff and avoiding loss--because the taxpayers are now
off the hook for loss in these areas that we have purchased and
returned to a natural state--then you have the cycle repeating.
There's a reason this vast array of organizations are opposed to it.
It's not environmentally sound; it's not fiscally sound; it violates
important principles of flood control; it's going to make it harder for
people. Bear in mind, these parcels were voluntarily purchased, but are
people going to give up land in the future if it might be subject to a
levee and development and a repetition of flooding? I think not.
So I would really hope that my colleagues pay careful attention to
this legislation. Look at the vast array of groups and organizations
that are opposed to it. Question why it is coming to the floor without
ever having a hearing. And most important, look at the devastation that
will occur if we move away from these established principles. Listen to
the floodplain managers. Listen to the environmentalists. Listen to the
taxpayer advocates. Protect the system. Reject this ill-conceived
measure.
Groups Opposed to S. 2039
Taxpayers for Common Sense; R Street; National Taxpayers
Union; SmarterSafer.org; American Consumer Institute;
American Conservative Union; Competitive Enterprise
Institute; Less Government; Association of Bermuda Insurers
and Reinsurers; National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies; National Flood Determination Association;
Reinsurance Association of America; National Leased Housing
Association; Association of State Flood Plain Managers.
Institute for Liberty; National Fire Protection
Association; Friends of the Earth; American Rivers; Ceres;
Defenders of Wildlife; Environmental Defense Fund; National
Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy; Republicans for
Environmental Protection; Sierra Club; Clean Air-Cool Planet;
ConservAmerica; Association of State Wetland Managers.
Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I mean, these are exactly why we need to do this. I mean, there's
passion when it comes to floods, passion when it comes to levees. What
concerns me is people don't understand probably what the Red River
Valley is like. This is flat. When there's a break in the levee, this
is not just a few homes, this will be miles and miles and miles.
I want to be very clear: the levee will be there, it's going to be
there. The only thing we're doing here is, right now, the Federal
Government, when there is a flood, pays for this. The Federal
Government shares in the cost to build a temporary levee. A month
later, they pay for it to tear it down--time and time again.
If you're concerned about the environment or you're concerned about
disruption, this is where we need to have that part of a levee system,
a permanent levee system that's already in place that has very little
impact on the environment.
As we can work through these commonsense things, these commonsense
solutions, this will help build a relationship so we can solve these
problems and move longer term, both in flood protection as well as the
Missouri River.
Again, just to reiterate that point: this bill has nothing to do with
the Missouri River--in fact, it did pass under unanimous consent in the
Senate, with the Senators up and down Missouri supporting it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, again, I think we're seeing the complexity
of this issue.
I just want to follow up on the gentleman from Oregon's remarks, that
the groups that have weighed in on this bill, from taxpayer groups on
the conservative side, to professional managers, to more progressive
environmental groups have weighed in against this bill.
Under the previously agreed general leave request, I want to include
letters and statements in opposition to S. 2039 from over 30 national
and State organizations, including the Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Rivers, the National
Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, and Republicans for
Environmental Protection--not a list of groups you often see on the
same page, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Taxpayers for Commonsense, R Street, National Taxpayers
Union,
July 23, 2012.
Dear Representative: We are strongly opposed to S. 2039, a
bill that is on the suspension calendar for a vote today.
This bill would allow communities in North Dakota to
construct levees on land that was so flood-prone that federal
taxpayers bought out the property owners on the condition of
no future development Construction of the levees will
inevitably lead to more high risk development and future
costs to taxpayers. In short, the taxpayer will be forced to
pay twice or more.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) enables voluntary buy-outs of frequently
flooded property, and to prevent future losses (and costs to
the federal government) the communities agree not to develop
the property in the future.
Instead of rectifying specific instances where problems
with the program may have arisen, or pursuing other
solutions, this bill applies broadly across the state of
North Dakota. In fact, while this legislation is specifically
targeted at North Dakota, the bill would set a precedent that
could have national implications. And it would trigger
potentially significant future costs that would be avoided by
simply not building on the land as was originally agreed. In
fact, taxpayers would be subsidizing the levee construction
by purchasing the land, which would enable the future levee
project and the local cost-sharing partner to avoid real
estate fees. A costly pattern could develop: the federal
taxpayer buys the property and a short while later the
community opts out of the program and builds a levee on the
``free'' land.
We urge you to oppose S. 2039. This controversial bill
should not have been placed on the suspension calendar and
should not be approved. For more information contact Steve
Ellis at 202-546-8500 x126 or steve,taxpayer.net.
Sincerely,
Stephen Ellis,
Vice President, Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Eli Lehrer,
President, R Street.
Andrew Moylan,
Vice President of Government Affairs National Taxpayers
Union.
____
SmarterSafer.org
Dear Representative: As a diverse coalition of taxpayer
advocates, environmental groups, and insurance interests, we
write to express our concerns regarding S. 2039, a bill that
would exempt the state of North Dakota from Stafford Act
requirements designed to protect property, the environment,
and taxpayer interests.
As currently written, the Stafford Act requires that once
federal funds are used to relocate communities and buildings
out of floodplains, the land will be dedicated and maintained
in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space,
recreation, or wetlands management practices. S. 2039 would
allow communities that voluntarily accepted buyout funds and
agreed to maintain the bought out land as open space to no
longer abide by their agreements. This will negatively impact
wetland protection, wildlife habitat, and water quality as
well as burden taxpayers.
S. 2039 was proposed to address a circumstance in North
Dakota in which temporary levees are built on land bought out
[[Page H5108]]
under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) during a flood. The
legislation gives North Dakota--and no other state--the
ability to build permanent levees on land purchased with
federal dollars and deed restricted as open space. This would
allow for development on land that is restricted as a result
of the buyout.
The bill undermines the purpose of the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP). Property acquisition for open space
under FEMA's mitigation programs is a commonsense flood risk
management approach. Communities can choose to relocate homes
and businesses that are in flood-prone areas, eliminating the
risk of flooding to those structures and eliminating the need
for federal taxpayers to pay for recovery every time the
structures flood. The space remains deed-restricted open
space to ensure that the taxpayer investment in that area is
preserved. Even better, it absorbs flood waters that would
otherwise flood areas downstream. These important goals are
undermined by S. 2039.
Federal taxpayers have already paid once to purchase the
land in question, and the open space requirement ensures that
the taxpayers will not have to pay disaster costs associated
with this land again. While the Senate's requirement that the
bill require state, local, or tribal funding of levee
construction represents a slight improvement, federal
taxpayers will still ultimately be on the hook for many
levees. By enrolling the completed levees in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Rehabilitation and Inspection
Program, local partners are eligible for the 80% federal
share of future rehabilitation and repair costs.
We are also concerned that in the long run, S. 2039 will
unintentionally result in harm to unsuspecting North Dakota
communities by encouraging more development behind the
constructed levees. In addition, flood waters have to go
somewhere and, since North Dakota alone will be able to build
new levees, flooding may occur in other areas.
FEMA's HMGP buyouts occur most often in deep floodplains,
right next to the rivers because these areas receive the
heaviest damage to structures. These portions of the
floodplains are incredibly valuable for the multiple
environmental benefits in addition to their ability to convey
and store floodwaters naturally. They also help to clean
water and provide areas for recreation, fishing, hunting, and
wildlife habitat. In addition, communities that allow room
for rivers and protect their floodplains are more resilient
to the next flood and often recover more quickly from a flood
event.
S. 2039 would only benefit communities in North Dakota;
however, it sets a dangerous precedent for undermining
mitigation elsewhere.
We understand the challenges North Dakota and other states
and communities face as they attempt to recover from floods.
However, we do not believe S. 2039 is the solution. A
Memorandum of Understanding currently exists between the
USACE and FEMA that allows these agencies to provide limited
exemptions on buyout land for certain circumstances. Nearly
any difficult circumstance could--and should--be addressed
through this process rather than by undermining the entire
purpose of HMGP.
Sincerely,
SmarterSafer.org.
MEMBERS
Environmental Organizations: American Rivers; Ceres;
Defenders of Wildlife; Environmental Defense Fund; National
Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy; Republicans for
Environmental Protection; Sierra Club.
Consumer and Taxpayer Advocates: American Consumer
Institute; American Conservative Union; Competitive
Enterprise Institute; Less Government; National Taxpayers
Union; R Street.
Insurer Interests: Association of Bermuda Insurers and
Reinsurers; National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies; National Flood Determination Association;
Reinsurance Association of America.
Housing: National Leased Housing Association,
Allied Organizations: Association of State Flood Plain
Managers; Friends of the Earth; Institute for Liberty;
National Fire Protection Association; Taxpayers for Common
Sense.
____
Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Inc.
Madison WI, July 17, 2012.
Controversial Bill will be Considered Today under Suspension
of Rules.
Dear Representative: Good morning! I wanted to draw your
attention to a bill that is being brought up on the House
floor today under Suspension of the Rules which the
Association of State Floodplain Managers feels is actually
very controversial and not suitable for consideration under
Suspension. The bill (S. 2039) would allow a State or local
government to construct levees on certain properties bought
out by taxpayers and designated as deed-restricted, open
space land. The measure was passed by the Senate this past
winter under Unanimous Consent very shortly after it was
introduced so the bill has had exactly zero debate or
discussion!
Here are the reasons ASFPM feels it is controversial:
While this bill is limited to North Dakota, it opens the
door to do this activity nationally. It would be established
as a pilot program. There are more than 37,000 properties
nationally that are permanently deed restricted (bought out
using taxpayer money) and costing the taxpayers nothing in
future flood damage costs or in operation and maintenance
costs.
This would turn the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) into a Community
Redevelopment Program. FEMA hazard mitigation programs are
meant for loss reduction and are intended to use the natural
functions of a floodplain for water conveyance and storage.
Placement of a permanent levee on the land induces increased
development behind the levee and, therefore, increased
consequences and costs when the levee fails or overtops.
Because participation in mitigation buy-outs is voluntary,
less participation can be expected if property owners think
their land will be used for redevelopment rather than open
space.
Taxpayers will be paying twice for less mitigation than
currently exists. Buy-out land can be flooded to any height
and not be damaged. What this bill would allow is not only a
structure that could be damaged, but also could lead to
damage to all of the newly induced development behind the
levee. This is what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane
Katrina. Levees and floodwalls fail and are overtopped.
Taxpayers have already paid for 100% mitigation on these
acquired properties.
Levees on deed-restricted taxpayer buy-out land would often
lead to poor floodplain management. They will usually be
built close to the river since that is where most buy-outs
occur. That results in squeezing the river resulting in
greater flood heights, greater water velocity and flooding
both upstream and downstream of the levee. One alternative
would involve the community using CMG or other funds to buy
out land behind the deed-restricted land and building a
setback levee. Such a levee could be much smaller and retain
the deed-restricted land for natural floodplain functions of
water conveyance and storage. This bill would have the effect
of promoting poor and expensive floodplain management
practices.
The bottom line is that this bill sets a terrible
precedent, is bad public policy, and should at least have
adequate discussion and a hearing by the Congress. Since the
FEMA HMGP program has been in place (1988) these deed
restrictions have been in place and have worked well across
the country. ASFPM was concerned after it passed the Senate
and sent the attached letter to the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. ASFPM feels a vote under suspension
is inappropriate. We hope that your Representative will vote
against this measure. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Chad Berginnis, CFM,
Executive Director.
____
The American Consumer Institute, American Rivers, The
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Clean Air-
Cool Planet, ConservAmerica, Friends of the Earth,
Taxpayers for Common Sense, National Wildlife
Federation, The Nature Conservancy.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and
supporters across the nation, we write to express our
concerns regarding S. 2039, a bill that would exempt the
state of North Dakota from Stafford Act requirements designed
to protect property, the environment, and taxpayer interests.
As currently written, the Stafford Act requires that once
federal funds are used to relocate communities and buildings
out of floodplains, the land will be dedicated and maintained
in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space,
recreational, or wetlands management practices. S. 2039,
which will be considered tomorrow on the suspension calendar,
has passed the Senate and now will receive a House vote
without receiving any hearings or in depth consideration in
either chamber of Congress. This bill would negatively impact
wetland protection, wildlife habitat, and water quality while
it sticks taxpayers with enormous bills. As such, we urge you
to oppose this legislation.
S. 2039 was proposed to address a circumstance in North
Dakota in which temporary levees that are built on land
bought out under Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) during a flood, be
removed following the flood. The legislation gives North
Dakota--and no other state--the ability to build permanent
levees on land purchased with federal dollars and deed
restricted as open space. This proposal, to put it simply, is
unwise, financially costly, destructive, and unnecessary.
The proposal is unwise because it violates the purpose of
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Property acquisition for
open space under FEMA's mitigation programs utilizes a
commonsense flood risk management approach. By relocating
homes and businesses that are in flood-prone areas, we
eliminate the risk of flooding to those structures, and
eliminate the need for the federal taxpayers to pay for
recovery every time the structures flood. The space remains
as deed-restricted open space to ensure that the taxpayer
investment in that area is preserved. Even better, it absorbs
flood waters that would otherwise flood areas downstream.
[[Page H5109]]
HMGP exists for this purpose while the proposed law allows
states to work against that explicit purpose.
The bill will also cost an enormous amount of money. The
Federal taxpayer has already paid once to purchase the land
in question and the open space requirement ensures that the
taxpayers will not have to pay disaster costs associated with
this land again. In addition, once the levees are built, many
people living behind the levees will become eligible for de
facto subsidized federal flood insurance that otherwise
wouldn't be sold in the area. While the Senate's requirement
that the bill require state, local, or tribal funding of
levee construction represents a slight improvement, federal
taxpayers will still ultimately be on the hook for many
levees. By enrolling the completed levees in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Rehabilitation and Inspection
Program, local partners are eligible for the 80% federal
share of future rehabilitation and repair costs.
The law is also destructive. We are concerned that in the
long run S. 2039 will unintentionally result in harm to
unsuspecting North Dakota communities by encouraging more
development behind the constructed levees. The 2011 floods
brought images of walls of water flooding homes after levees
breached or overtopped, reminding us that it is impossible to
out-build Mother Nature. In the long run, flood waters have
to go somewhere and, since North Dakota alone will be able to
build new levees, many of them will flood other areas. There
is no way of getting around this.
This is even worse because FEMA's HMGP buy-outs occur most
often in deep floodplains, right next to the rivers, because
these are areas that receive the heaviest damage to
structures. These portions of the floodplains are incredibly
valuable for the multiple environmental benefits they provide
in addition to their ability to convey and store floodwaters
naturally. They also help to clean water, provide areas for
recreation, fishing, hunting, and wildlife habitat. In
addition, communities that allow room for rivers and protect
their floodplains are more resilient to the next flood and
often recover more quickly from a flood event.
In any event, the law simply isn't necessary. No policy--
including HMGP's current programs--is perfect and, for just
that reason, Memorandum of Understanding currently exists
between the USACE and FEMA that allows these agencies to
provide limited exemptions on buyout land for certain
circumstances. Nearly any difficult circumstance could--and
should--be addressed through this preexisting process, rather
than by undermining the entire purpose of HMGP.
We understand the challenges North Dakota and other states
and communities face as they attempt to recover from floods.
Increased federal flexibility can help them do this. But S.
2039, in its current form, is just bad public policy.
Sincerely,
Adam Kolton,
Executive Director, National Advocacy Center, National
Wildlife Federation.
David Jenkins,
Vice President for Government and Political Affairs,
ConservAmerica.
Sarah Woodhouse Murdock,
Acting Director, Climate Change Adaptation Policy, The
Nature Conservancy.
Steve Pociask,
President, The American Consumer Institute.
Steve Ellis,
Vice President, Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Brooks B. Yeager,
Executive Vice President for Policy, Clean Air-Cool Planet.
Jim Bradley,
Senior Director of Government Relations, American Rivers.
Ben Schreiber,
Climate and Energy Tax Analyst, Friends of the Earth.
Chad Berginnis,
Executive Director, The Association of State Floodplain
Managers.
____
American Rivers,
Wildlife Federation,
July 16, 2012.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and
supporters across the nation, we write to express our
concerns regarding S. 2039, a bill that would exempt the
state of North Dakota from Stafford Act requirements designed
to protect property, the environment and taxpayer interests.
As currently written, the Stafford Act requires that once
federal funds are used to relocate communities and buildings
out of floodplains, the land will be dedicated and maintained
in perpetuity for a use that is compatible with open space,
recreational, or wetlands management practices. S. 2039,
which will be considered tomorrow on the suspension calendar,
has passed the Senate and now will receive a House vote
without receiving any hearings or in depth consideration in
either chamber of Congress. This bill would negatively impact
wetland protection, wildlife habitat and water quality and
for these reasons, among others, we urge you to oppose this
legislation.
S. 2039 was proposed to address a circumstance in North
Dakota in which temporary levees are built on land bought out
under Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) during a flood which must
then be removed following the flood. The legislation would
establish a pilot program within the state of North Dakota to
allow for the construction of permanent levees on land
purchased with federal dollars and deed restricted as open
space. We have concerns first, that this legislation would
set unwise federal policy and that it may be unnecessary
given existing federal policies, and second that the federal
government would be unintentionally causing harm to the North
Dakota communities seeking to manage their flood risk.
S. 2039 violates the purpose and spirit of the Hazard
Mitigation Giant Program--Property acquisition for open space
under FEMA's mitigation programs is a commonsense flood risk
management approach. By relocating homes and businesses that
are in flood-prone areas, we eliminate the risk of flooding
to those structures, and eliminate the need for the federal
taxpayers to pay for recovery every time the structures
flood. The space remains as deed-restricted open space to
ensure that the taxpayer investment in that area is
preserved, and allows for the storage and conveyance of flood
waters without harming life and property.
The Federal taxpayer has already paid once to purchase the
land in question and the open space requirement ensures that
the taxpayers will not have to pay disaster costs associated
with this land again. Though the Senate bill was amended to
require State, local, or tribal funding of levee
construction, the bill would create a backdoor for these
nonfederal entities to use federal taxpayer dollars. By
enrolling the completed levees in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (USACE) Rehabilitation and Inspection Program,
local partners are eligible for the 80% federal share of
future rehabilitation and repair costs.
We are also concerned that in the long run S. 2039 will
unintentionally result in harm to unsuspecting North Dakota
communities by encouraging more development behind the
constructed levees. The 2011 flooding brought images of walls
of water flooding homes after levees breached or overtopped
reminding us that it is impossible to out build Mother
Nature. No matter how strong or tall we build levees, they
still fail, often with catastrophic consequences. Many people
living behind these structures don't even know that their
homes are in danger. It does not appear that development
would be restricted in the inundation zone behind the
constructed levees allowed in this pilot program.
Furthermore, while S. 2039 requires the community to
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
this program does little or nothing to assist communities
that live behind levees. Homeowners who live behind levees
are not currently required to purchase flood insurance, and
they often assume the levee will protect them. But when the
levee is overtopped or fails, the homeowner must rely on
federal disaster assistance to recover.
Finally, FEMA's HMGP buy-outs occur most often in deep
floodplains, right next to the rivers because these are areas
that receive the heaviest damage to structures. These
portions of the floodplains are incredibly valuable for the
multiple environmental benefits they provide in addition to
their ability to convey and store floodwaters naturally. It
is estimated that floodplains provide approximately 25% of
all terrestrial ecosystem service benefits despite that they
only cover 2% of the land surface.1 These services include
clean water, recreation, and wildlife habitat, among many
others. In addition, communities that allow room for rivers
and protect their floodplains are more resilient to the next
flood and often recover more quickly from a flood event.
S. 2039 would only benefit communities in North Dakota.
However for the reasons above, it should in no way be
expanded to other states or nationwide. We understand that a
Memorandum of Understanding currently exists between the
USACE and FEMA that allows these agencies to provide limited
exemptions on buyout land for certain circumstances. For this
reason we question whether this legislation is necessary to
address the challenges that North Dakota communities are
facing.
We understand the challenges North Dakota and other states
and communities face as they attempt to recover from floods.
However, we urge you to oppose this legislation.
Sincerely,
Jim Bradley,
Senior Director of Government Relations, American Rivers.
Joshua Saks,
Legislative Director, National Wildlife Federation.
[[Page H5110]]
____
The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, VA, July 16, 2012.
Speaker John A. Boehner,
U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: It has
come to our attention that S. 2039, ``A Bill to allow a State
or local government to construct levees on certain properties
otherwise designated as open space lands'' is due to be
brought up on the House floor tomorrow to be considered Under
Suspension of the Rules.
We ask that you oppose this bill as it would set a bad
federal policy precedent on a number of fronts. The bill
would allow expenditure of federal funds to build a levee on
lands where federal funds have been previously expended under
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Funds under the
HMGP have been used to buyout and remove properties that were
subjected to high flood risk. The land is then returned to
its natural state and acts more effectively to mitigate
future floods. The land is permanently deed restricted to
ensure that no future development can be built and subjected
to flood risk and diminish the floodplain function of
absorbing and dispersing flood waters.
If a levee was allowed to be built, federal taxpayers would
be unnecessarily paying twice to reduce flood risk. In
addition, a levee does not guarantee protection from future
flood risk, especially if the flooding event is greater than
a 100 year flood (which are occurring at greater frequency
due to an increase in extreme precipitation events). In
addition, any development occurring in the area would remain
at risk to future flooding events.
While we understand that this legislation addresses a
specific location, we are concerned about the precedent that
this bill would establish for all other areas in the nation
where buyouts have occurred under the HMGP program. Such
buyouts typically have taken place in areas of repetitive
loss under the National Flood Insurance program and thus
represent high flood hazard areas. Voluntary buyout and
removal of properties is the best way to ensure the future
safety of residents and minimize federal expenditures from
future flood damage. Allowing levees or other barriers such
as sea walls to be built would be extremely costly, undermine
the integrity of the natural flood protection provided by
existing open space, and provide a false sense of security to
the property owners behind such structures.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and again we
ask that you oppose this bill.
Sincerely,
Robert Bendick,
Director, U.S. Government Relations.
Mr. BERG. I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, again, Members of the assembly here: there are 1,400
people in Minot that aren't living in their homes--there are 1,400
families, not people. Every year creates an uneasiness on the people
that live in this flat valley, in the Red River Valley. This is an
important bill. It's critical for long-term planning and clearly will
save not only the Federal Government money, but it will save the local
government money. It also will save all the volunteer time that goes
into building a levee, taking a levee down.
I do believe if you saw the area where this will go, you would agree
that a permanent levee system that ties into the landscaping would
really be a positive impact on the wildlife and the habitat in those
areas.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express some concerns
regarding S. 2039, introduced by Sen. Hoeven, and sent to this body
after unanimous consent in the Senate. I am concerned that this
language, though well intentioned, is vague and could potentially
result in negative consequences downstream, should this language be
signed into law.
I remain concerned that the language could be applied to rivers
beyond the Souris and the Red, without explicit Congressional intent.
There is potential, although small, for levee construction to take
place up and down the stretch of Missouri River that runs through North
Dakota, resulting in negative consequences throughout the Missouri
River basin.
I am comforted by the fact that there seems to be a rigorous FEMA
review and approval process for construction of these levees, and I
trust that the author's intentions are to allow for construction of new
levees along only the Souris River and the Red River at specified
locations. I appreciate the steps taken by the gentleman from North
Dakota, Mr. Berg, to address these concerns and to make very clear for
future reference that Congressional intent is to show that this
legislation is intended to apply only to locations along the Souris and
Red Rivers.
Mr. Speaker, our nation has gone too long without improving our levee
systems. I do applaud the efforts to allow municipalities to take into
their own hands efforts to rehabilitate systems. At the same time, it
is important that they meet all necessary guidelines and do not injure
other states and communities along a river bank.
I look forward to continuing this important conversation with the
gentlemen from North Dakota.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, S. 2039.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________