[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN EXAMINATION OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S LIMITED
ROLE IN LOCAL LAND-USE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS
=======================================================================
(114-53)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-645 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROB WOODALL, Georgia ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TODD ROKITA, Indiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN KATKO, New York CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Michael Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.................................... 5
Christine Shirley, National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator,
Department of Land Conservation and Development, State of
Oregon......................................................... 5
Hon. Denny Doyle, Mayor, City of Beaverton, Oregon............... 5
Hon. Heather Carruthers, Commissioner, Monroe County, Florida, on
behalf of the National Association of Counties................. 5
Jon Chandler, Chief Executive Officer, Oregon Home Builders
Association, on behalf of the National Association of Home
Builders....................................................... 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Michael Grimm.................................................... 39
Christine Shirley................................................ 55
Hon. Denny Doyle................................................. 63
Hon. Heather Carruthers.......................................... 66
Jon Chandler..................................................... 73
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, request to submit three letters expressing
concern over the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives arising
from the National Marine Fisheries Service's biological
opinion:
Letter of June 17, 2016, from Hon. Kate Brown, Governor of
the State of Oregon, to W. Craig Fugate, Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency........................ 85
Letter of June 28, 2016, from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, to
Will Stelle, Administrator, West Coast Region, National
Marine Fisheries Service................................... 87
Letter of June 28, 2016, from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio et al.,
to W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.......................................... 91
Michael Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, responses to questions for the
record from the following Representatives:
Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania............................ 45
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.............................. 48
Hon. Lois Frankel of Florida................................. 52
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Letter of September 29, 2016, from Hon. Kate Brown, Governor of
the State of Oregon, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon.
Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure............................................. 93
Letter of September 21, 2016, from Chad Berginnis, Executive
Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., to
Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking
Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure......... 95
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AN EXAMINATION OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S LIMITED
ROLE IN LOCAL LAND-USE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Shuster. The committee will come to order. Welcome to
today's hearing.
I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio for bringing this
important issue to our attention. And today's hearing will
focus on two important issues, particularly. The first is the
extent of FEMA's authority to implement the National Flood
Insurance Program, and the second is the national implications
of FEMA's implementation of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
The committee has worked this Congress to understand what
is driving the rise in disaster costs and losses, including
particular policies that may not make much sense or may be
rewarding bad behavior.
As we have seen recently with flooding in Louisiana and
right in my home district in Connellsville and Bullskin
Township, the National Flood Insurance Program is an important
part of preparing communities for flood risks they face. We
know that smart mitigation practices save the taxpayer at least
$4 for every $1 invested.
It is important that local land-use and development
decisions ultimately reside with local officials who understand
the risks and challenges of a particular area. Additionally, it
is critical that Federal agencies understand the limitations of
their authorities and work within their authorities.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
And now I yield to the ranking member for an opening
statement.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this oversight hearing of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. And thanks to the witnesses who are here today.
As you stated earlier, the National Flood Insurance Program
is critical in many areas. It's pretty simple. It says that,
you know, the FEMA should develop minimum flood plain
standards, and then it's up to local communities to enact laws
that meet or exceed those in order to participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Now, in the particular case of Oregon, which, under this,
is now being sort of nominated to be the poster child and the
template for all the United States of America by certain
agencies and groups, we have strict land-use planning. So the
question becomes how are you going to overlay these new rules
on top of our already strict land-use planning, which is
designed to have compact urban growth?
But it also says you have to accommodate future needs. And
therefore, you have to have enough buildable property. In all
probability, we would have to blow up our law, do away with the
idea of compact growth, and say, no, we are going to have
sprawling growth like so many other places because the downtown
core of many of our cities, which was intended to be
redeveloped with higher densities, including the riverfront
through Portland, where Oregon Health Sciences is building
major new projects. Parts of downtown Eugene, an area called
Glenwood between Eugene and Springfield, these areas would be
pretty well precluded from redevelopment. Therefore, it appears
that we would then begin to model ourselves after the rest of
the country.
And somehow this is going to help the endangered species,
according to the National Marine Fisheries Service. I give a--
you know, we have a map that shows how many communities in
Oregon would be affected, which they are going to put up. And
you can see it is over 221 communities in Oregon would be
affected--232.
It would--in the case of Coos Bay--if I could have the Coos
Bay map--Coos Bay is a community, it has been struggling with a
depressed economy for many years. There are some glimmers of
hope and activity there. But this is what has been designated
and which FEMA would restrict or prohibit development or
redevelopment in that entire area.
That happens to be all of the downtown core--you can leave
it up for a second, whoever took it down--that--that area, it
does include the local newspaper building, which is critical
salmon habitat. It does include Highway 101, critical salmon
habitat. It does include some buildings that are well over 100
years old and need substantial renovation or actually would be
replaced. But no, this area would be denied flood insurance
unless they dramatically restrict or prohibit any redevelopment
in that area, at least in an interim period, while FEMA
develops rules to accommodate the so-called RPA.
So, we are going to have a number of witnesses here today
to talk about this. You know, when I first came to Congress,
there was--one of the early black helicopter conspiracy
theories was about the Rockefeller Commission. And I said,
``Well, what is that?''
And they said, ``I have a plan to institute national land
use--the Federal Government is going to usurp the police powers
of the States under the Constitution, and is going to mandate
national land-use planning.'' And I would always tell those
people they were nuts. Well, maybe they weren't. That is why we
are here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. And with that, I
recognize the subcommittee chair, Mr. Barletta, for a
statement.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since the beginning of the 114th Congress, we have been
exploring the rising costs of disasters in terms of both the
loss of property and human life. At our first hearing in the
114th Congress, I stated that my top emergency management
priority was pursuing disaster legislation that will save
lives, lower costs, and launch a comprehensive review of
Federal disaster policies and the rising costs of disasters.
Early last year, Ranking Member Carson and I introduced the
FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act to call for the first
comprehensive assessment of disaster costs and losses in over
20 years.
One of the most important pieces of our country's disaster
assistance policy is linked to the National Flood Insurance
Program, or the NFIP. So, today's hearing focusing on FEMA's
authorities to implement the NFIP, and the extent that those
authorities can impact local land-use and development
decisions, is a critical element of that discussion.
I thank Ranking Member DeFazio for bringing this issue to
the forefront so that we could bring the right people together
to help us understand how some of the challenges being faced in
Oregon will impact the entire Nation. I look forward to hearing
from FEMA, the State and local officials, and our
representatives from the National Association of Home Builders,
about their current challenges and concerns regarding these
issues. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And now I would like to recognize
Mr. Curbelo to introduce one of his constituents, who is a
witness today.
Mr. Curbelo. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio,
thank you for yielding me time and, more importantly, thank you
for holding a hearing on such an important topic as FEMA's role
in the National Flood Insurance Program.
My south Florida district is almost completely surrounded
by water, so this hearing is of particular importance to my
constituents, which is why I am so proud to have with us today
Mayor Heather Carruthers from Monroe County, Florida, on behalf
of the National Association of Counties.
As the mayor of all of the Florida Keys, Ms. Carruthers
brings to this hearing a unique insight on how flood insurance
rates affect those who work and live in our coastal
communities, not just those who come for vacation.
As a member of the Key West Chamber of Commerce, and as an
instrumental founder of the Fair Insurance Rates in Monroe
County, or FIRM, Mayor Carruthers has been an invaluable source
of information to me and my staff, as we work together on
addressing flood insurance rates and disaster mitigation. She
is a steadfast leader in our community for working on behalf of
her constituents and those residents who call the Keys home.
And fun fact: She has been a featured soloist with the Key
West Pops and Island Opera Theatre. Also, recently, a charades
partner with me--a very successful partnership, by the way, at
a charity event--and, more importantly, Mayor Carruthers and
her family recently welcomed a little boy to the world, Colin.
So congratulations, and thank you so much for joining us today.
Ms. Carruthers. Thank you very much, Representative. It is
a pleasure working with you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, and welcome. He said a soloist.
Does that mean an instrument or a singer?
Ms. Carruthers. Mezzo soprano.
Mr. Shuster. OK. The high voice. Is that the low voice? I
don't know anything about music.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. And with that, I will recognize Mr. Carson,
the ranking member of the subcommittee, for a statement.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, Chairman Barletta.
You know, today's topic explores how the Endangered Species
Act affects the Federal Emergency Management Agency's work in
implementing the National Flood Insurance Act. Both of these
laws are very essential, yet the interplay between these two
laws raised several questions that we need to examine.
Congress directed FEMA to carry out the National Flood
Insurance Program. But this morning we will have a conversation
about the extent the National Marine Fisheries Service should
be allowed to direct FEMA, if at all, on how FEMA carries out
the NFIP. FEMA currently does not authorize, fund, or license
private development on private lands. Yet the Fisheries Service
is directing FEMA to either take or prohibit certain actions.
That will result in FEMA being responsible for determining
whether privately funded activities on private lands may occur.
So, the committee must examine whether FEMA should have
this land-use authority, or regulatory authority. Now, the
Fisheries Service is proposing that FEMA exercise its authority
to prohibit most, if not all, private development in Oregon
flood plains. If FEMA exercises its authority, we need to know
whether it could be used nationwide.
On the surface, these issues seem to only apply in Oregon.
But what I want to learn more about is whether these
authorities and directives could be expanded elsewhere. We have
several endangered species in Indiana that deserve protection,
but we also have flood plains, and property owners who have
resided in these flood plains for a long time, and who need
flood insurance.
I look forward to learning more about the laws and
processes involved here, as well as other issues, concerns, and
suggestions for addressing these issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Carson. And, with that, we will
start our panel.
First, welcome to all of you for being here. We really
appreciate you taking the time to testify with us today and
help educate us.
Our first witness is Mr. Michael Grimm, the Assistant
Administrator for Mitigation at FEMA. Mr. Grimm, you are
recognized for your statement.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL GRIMM, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
MITIGATION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CHRISTINE
SHIRLEY, NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COORDINATOR,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF
OREGON; HON. DENNY DOYLE, MAYOR, CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON;
HON. HEATHER CARRUTHERS, COMMISSIONER, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; AND JON
CHANDLER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OREGON HOME BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME
BUILDERS
Mr. Grimm. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Shuster and
Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the committee. My name is
Michael Grimm, and I am the Assistant Administrator for
Mitigation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify about FEMA's efforts to
strengthen our National Flood Insurance Program compliance with
the Endangered Species Act in Oregon, as well as the associated
implications, nationwide.
In response to lawsuits brought under ESA, FEMA has been
required, either by the courts or through settlement agreements
with plaintiffs, to undertake consultations under the ESA on
implementation of the NFIP in particular communities and
regions. In consultations undertaken in Monroe County, Florida,
the Puget Sound region of Washington, and in Oregon, the
Services--in some cases the National Marine Fisheries Service,
or NMFS, and in other cases the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service--have found that the implementation of the NFIP in
those areas was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened and endangered species, and adversely modify
designated critical habitat. When a jeopardy opinion is issued,
the Services must also provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives, if any, to a proposed action.
The RPA is a recommended set of program changes that will
ensure a proposed action is implemented in a manner that will
not jeopardize species, as well as the adverse modification of
critical habitats.
Up until the consultation conducted with NMFS in Oregon,
all of the RPAs from consultations had been able to be
implemented, consistent with the NFIP and what we at FEMA call
performance-based standards. FEMA uses performance-based
standards to implement the NFIP throughout our 22,000
participating communities. FEMA recognizes that there are any
number of ways in which a committee can meet the minimum flood
plain management criteria established by FEMA for a community
to participate in the NFIP.
Performance-based standards provide flexibility for
communities to meet the requirements of the ESA in a way that
makes sense to them. In like manner, the RPAs FEMA implemented
prior to the Oregon consultation operated within this
framework, allowing FEMA to work collaboratively with
communities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act in a way that made sense to each
individual community.
For example, FEMA's implementation of the RPA resulting
from the Puget Sound Washington area consultation with NMFS
provided communities flexibility to implement an approach to
preserve ESA-listed species and their designated critical
habitat in a manner that is consistent with local decisions and
land use. While some communities chose to adopt a model
ordinance to ensure compliance with the requirements of ESA,
others have the flexibility to demonstrate through existing
codes and standards that they are already meeting these
important standards.
Still others chose a third option, demonstrating compliance
on a permit-by-permit basis. The RPA resulting from the Oregon
consultation with NMFS, however, is different. In Oregon, NMFS
issued an RPA that differs from the Puget Sound performance-
based standard approach, following a prescriptive approach,
instead.
If implemented as written, the RPA in Oregon will result in
expansion of areas mapped within the special flood hazard area
to include areas likely to flood based on data reflecting the
anticipated impacts of climate change, and will require
enhanced regulatory flood plain management criteria going
beyond the minimum standards currently required as a condition
of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Changing FEMA's regulations to accommodate these
requirements of the RPA in Oregon will not only impact how FEMA
administers the NFIP in Oregon, but across the Nation in all
22,000 communities that participate in the NFIP.
Environmental stewardship is an important responsibility,
and FEMA is committed to doing everything within our authority
to ensure that the NFIP is compliant with the ESA. At FEMA we
believe in the whole-community approach in accomplishing our
mission. As such, we will continue a close working relationship
with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as
working with our State, local, and tribal partners to make sure
we accomplish our goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering any questions the committee may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Grimm. Now our next witness
today is Ms. Chris Shirley, the National Flood Insurance
Program coordinator for the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development.
Thank you for being here today.
Ms. Shirley. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here
today to talk about this--to discuss Oregon's perspective on
the reasonable and prudent alternatives. My name is Christine
Shirley, and I work with communities directly on implementation
of the National Flood Insurance Program in Oregon, as the State
NFIP coordinator.
I am going to present an abbreviated version of some
written testimony that I have submitted.
So, as Mr. DeFazio mentioned, Oregon has been a pioneer in
implementing a statewide land-use program. This was implemented
40 years ago. And it preserves local control and responsibility
for land-use decisions while establishing an overarching set of
goals known as our 19 land-use planning goals, which, at its
core, direct new development into towns and cities, protect
rural areas for farm and forest use, and evaluate environmental
impacts at the planning level, rather than at the permit-by-
permit level that is the case in some States, many States.
So, now Oregon is at the forefront of a Federal directive
through these reasonable and prudent alternatives to
incorporate an additional layer of land-use management in the
special flood hazard areas.
So I want to emphasize that the State of Oregon supports
the principle of sound flood plain management, because we
believe it protects people, property, habitat function, and
economic vitality. And, as a result, the State has strenuously
endeavored to be a good partner with our Federal counterparts
at FEMA and the National Marine Fisheries Service during the
multiyear consultation that resulted in the reasonable and
prudent alternative, and will continue to participate
vigorously in the years ahead.
And since the RPA was released in April, we have learned a
few things, recognized a few challenges. And primary among the
lessons is the importance of early involvement of the States
and local governments in the crafting of any future reasonable
and prudent alternatives.
The State was only allowed limited interaction with the
Federal agencies during the consultation period, and we are now
faced with a really difficult task of having to fit a
consultation that didn't really involve us and doesn't really
fit with the Oregon land-use planning system; we have to fit
that RPA into our existing land-use program. It would have been
easier if we had had the opportunity to do that fitting earlier
on.
In the same vein, it is important now that FEMA involve
local governments in the development of implementation
strategies for the RPA, and that FEMA understand local
government timelines and resources in setting their
implementation targets for the RPA.
The State has been told by FEMA, for example, that they
intend to develop guidance to implement interim measures set
forth in the RPA by April of 2017, which is only 9 months away,
and then have local governments adopt changes into their
permitting programs to reflect that guidance. And that schedule
of less than 2 years is not possible to be implemented for 232
communities in Oregon.
And likewise, the schedule for adopting revised flood
insurance rate maps that are called for in the RPA over the
next decade, it must pay attention to State and local processes
and budgets and resources. And realistically, the State can't
manage an aggressive map adoption process as called for in the
RPA. And just by way of example, the FEMA map modernization
program took over 10 years to implement in a much smaller
number of communities.
To their credit, both FEMA and NMFS have emphasized
outreach after the RPA was released, and scheduled immediately
with us some webinars that local government and the State were
involved in. And then we hosted 10 regional meetings throughout
the State with FEMA and NMFS, where we talked about the RPA and
heard from local governments what their concerns were.
And we learned many important things, such as the need to
get credit and leverage Oregon's existing land-use planning
program, to contextualize the RPA within the watershed
management program, and not just focus directly on flood
plains, develop a mitigation banking program, and to limit
uncertainty around changing rules, maps, and timelines that can
dampen development investment.
The State is concerned that the recommended changes to the
flood plain mapping protocols as set forth in element 3 of the
RPA would dramatically increase the footprint of the special
flood hazard areas and regulation therein called for in the
RPA, and----
Mr. Shuster. Ms. Shirley, if I could get you to wrap up----
Ms. Shirley. Yes. And those could have a significant
negative economic impact.
So, in conclusion, the changes brought about by this
consultation must not be overlaid on top of our existing
system, but be woven into it, and that is going to take some
time and resources and dedicated staff at the Federal level.
Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Ms. Shirley. And with that, our
next witness is the Honorable Denny Doyle, the mayor of the
city of Beaverton, Oregon.
Thank you for being here today and proceed, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Shuster and
Ranking Member DeFazio. I am Denny Doyle, mayor of the city of
Beaverton. I am also the incoming president of the Oregon
League of Cities, as well as a board member of the National
League of Cities. Beaverton is located just 2 short hours north
of the majestic tall firs in Congressman DeFazio's Lane County.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the FEMA role in implementing the National Flood
Insurance Program in Oregon and throughout the United States.
As we all know, in 2009 FEMA was sued by environmental
groups in Oregon for failing to ensure that the implementation
of the NFIP complies with the Endangered Species Act. In
response to the ruling, FEMA consulted with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, resulting in the reasonable and prudent
alternatives that aims to minimize impacts to ESA-listed
species.
The final draft of the RPA calls for drastic expansion of
an area to be protected beyond FEMA's current jurisdiction
under the NFIP. If the new protected area is imposed on
communities, it will have an unprecedented negative impact on
economic growth, job creation, and new development as well as
redevelopment, including affordable housing throughout Oregon.
These lawsuits are occurring in a piecemeal fashion around
the country. I encourage Members of Congress to be aware that
if the impacts you hear about today have not yet affected your
congressional district, they almost surely will in the future.
I have had the opportunity to meet with representatives from
both FEMA and NMFS over the past several years in both
Washington, DC, and Oregon to discuss this situation, and I
truly remain dismayed at the end results of ESA consultation.
During development of the RPA, FEMA repeatedly stated their
concerns with the ``major legal and practical issues concerning
the RPA,'' and that the ``RPA provides little flexibility in
how to achieve `no adverse effect.' '' Therefore, FEMA
concluded that they were unsure how the RPA could be made
``fully implementable within FEMA's legal authorities.'' Yet
here we are, with an RPA that FEMA and our local governments
must implement.
We all agree that the protection of threatened and
endangered species is a high priority. However, Beaverton is an
urban community, one with very little undeveloped land left. In
or next door to our community are major corporations such as
Nike's world headquarters, Intel, Columbia Sportswear, to name
just a few. Given the preponderance of many small streams that
may contain threatened or endangered species, such stringent
control of development in an arbitrarily enlarged flood area as
proposed by the RPA could deter development for much of our
community.
Without development or redevelopment by our business
community, we cannot create new jobs or continue to improve our
little part of the world. For example, a restaurant in
Beaverton with a long history of shallow-flood damage--i.e.,
water in a parking lot--has recently been demolished and
reconstructed. This pre-flood insurance rate map building has
been rebuilt with a finished floor 2 feet higher than the base
flood elevation. In other words, they lifted the ground 10
feet. This is smart, flood-resistant development. However, such
a beneficial project could effectively be precluded in some way
by the new RPA.
In another example, a previously developed area located
within the RPA-expanded flood zone could not be redeveloped
into affordable housing because of the additional costs.
Significant employers and exporters will also likely be
adversely impacted. In general, any development plans within
the affected areas would require costly and time-consuming
consultations with NMFS and FEMA, if they were allowed at all,
and if they were affordable at all.
Finally, on a personal note, I am working hard to create an
arts and culture center in downtown Beaverton, adjacent to
Beaverton Creek. Twenty-plus years. Even though at this time
ESA-listed species do not exist in the creek, the RPA will
likely force us to implement significant RPA measures when
developing and constructing the arts center. This is going to
be built at no cost to the local taxpayers; it is a $45 million
project. All of this comes at a cost, a significant one when
just raising the funding to develop the arts center itself is a
challenge on its own terms.
It should also be mentioned that we remain frustrated about
the lack of opportunity to provide comments on the RPA--and
thank you for this opportunity. The Congress should know that
the iterations of the RPA for Oregon were developed in an
apparent vacuum, one that does not respect nor serve the local
communities that must ultimately comply with its mandates.
Simply put, the RPA developed by NMFS is unworkable in
Oregon and for FEMA. It demands action that is unreasonable and
potentially unenforceable by FEMA, all at little identifiable
value to the species they aim to protect.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I am happy to answer questions later. And good luck to
all of us that appropriate in November.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mayor Doyle. Our next witness today
was introduced, the Honorable Heather Carruthers, the county
commissioner from Monroe County, Florida. And she is testifying
on behalf of the National Association of Counties.
Again, thank you for being here, and please proceed with
your statement.
Ms. Carruthers. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and distinguished members of the committee for this
opportunity to testify on FEMA's role in local land-use
decisions. My name is Heather Carruthers, and I am an elected
county commissioner from Monroe County, Florida, home of the
Florida Keys. And today I am representing the National
Association of Counties.
The topic of this hearing is of great importance to my
county and to many other counties across the United States. In
fact, in Monroe County we have been dealing with this issue for
more than three decades, initially through locally originated
efforts, and eventually through the courts.
The National Flood Insurance Program is vital to us, and
any changes to the program and its requirements directly affect
our residents, businesses, and local economy. Although counties
are highly diverse across the country, we share many of the
same goals and responsibilities. We establish local land-use
policies that protect our natural resources and environment,
but also provide the tools and foundation needed for
development that helps our communities. In Monroe County we
have worked diligently to identify solutions that help us
balance both of these goals. Today my remarks will focus on
three points.
First, local governments work daily to craft land-use
policies that protect endangered species, mitigate disasters,
and facilitate economic development in compliance with existing
State and Federal species protection regulations. In most
States, land-use planning and regulation is carried out
primarily at the local level. Through this land-use authority,
we help to shape the local communities within our
jurisdictions.
In my county we have approximately 30 endangered and
threatened species. We work to protect these species and their
habitats in many ways, including establishing ordinances that
limit construction and development in specific areas of the
county. Our local regulations cap building permits for many
reasons, the most important of which is to protect
environmentally sensitive land. These local land-use policies
are developed through extensive coordination with our
communities, as well as our State and Federal partners. We have
long required coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service
before issuing any building permits.
Second, because NFIP is so important to our flood-prone
communities, local governments have little choice but to comply
with its participation requirements. In 2012, the Government
Accountability Office estimated that about 95 percent of the
Nation's counties had NFIP policies in their jurisdictions. In
Monroe County, we have over 27,000 NFIP policies, and Florida,
as a whole, has over 1.8 million.
The importance of the NFIP to our county was highlighted
when, in 2005, a Federal court halted issuance of new NFIP
policies for nearly 50,000 parcels in Monroe County, following
a lawsuit filed for conservation groups, even though we had
already carefully developed comprehensive land-use policies to
protect our environment and native species. For 7 years, this
FEMA injunction remained in place, and owners of the parcels
were unable to build. Construction costs skyrocketed, and the
permitting process dragged. We documented instances of
homeowners paying over $1,000 more in permit fees, and waiting
almost a year for Fish and Wildlife Service approval before
they could proceed.
The only homeowners and businesses that were able to move
forward were those with deep pockets who could do without flood
insurance. And as you can imagine, this really hurt our working
families and small businesses. It further slowed economic
growth and drove up business and housing costs.
Finally, species protection regulations carried out through
NFIP have typically been one-size-fits-all solutions that
consider neither the variance in local communities nor our
existing species protection efforts. As a result of the
previously mentioned lawsuit, reasonable and prudent
alternatives, RPAs, required our county to revise our flood
damage prevention ordinances. We were required to implement a
new permit process that was essentially a repackaging of
existing county regulations with multiple layers of added
bureaucracy. Owners of properties within endangered species
habitat areas were already required to seek Fish and Wildlife
Service approval before getting county permits for development.
FEMA's review did not take into consideration the unique
circumstances of our county ordinances and procedures.
Ultimately, no additional habitat acreage was protected. In
short, the entire process added no real value to the species
protective measures we had already developed and enforced. It
simply added more redtape and cost. As you can see from this
permit review process flow chart, this is what is required of a
homeowner--property owner before they can get a building
permit. And this does not even include what happens at Fish and
Wildlife or FEMA.
So thank you again, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and members of the committee, for this opportunity to
provide the local perspective on how advancing species
protection efforts through NFIP is problematic and ultimately
counterproductive at the local level. And I am happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Commissioner Carruthers. And our
final witness today is Mr. Jon Chandler, the chief executive
officer of the Oregon Home Builders Association. He is
testifying on behalf of the National Association of Home
Builders.
Thank you for being here today, and please proceed with
your statement.
Mr. Chandler. Thank you, Chair Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, members of the committee. I really appreciate the
opportunity to come talk about what is happening with NFIP on
behalf both of NAHB and my organization, the Oregon Home
Builders. I am the CEO of the Oregon HBA. We are a State
association of the National Home Builders, and this is an issue
of great interest for us across the country.
I am going to address this morning, in addition to my
written testimony, the land-use problems that are created by
linking the Endangered Species Act with FEMA's National Flood
Insurance Program. Quite simply, it is inappropriate to use the
NFIP to protect endangered species. Doing it that way adds
duplicative, burdensome, and costly regulatory barriers that
will prevent the development of communities in a sensible and
planned fashion. It will hurt well-paying jobs, and it will
increase the price of housing beyond the means of many middle-
class and working families.
Courts have held recently that FEMA must consult with the
National Marine Fisheries Service concerning impacts of the
NFIP on endangered species. In Oregon, as you have heard, NMFS
issued a biological opinion dictating the implementation of
NFIP. The State of Oregon and every city and county in Oregon
has invested over 40 years in comprehensive statewide land-use
planning, the money that goes along with that, the
infrastructure planning and development that goes along with
that. But with this NMFS BiOp, those efforts will be
significantly undermined, if not completely undone.
The terms of the BiOp could result in large areas of land
that can no longer be developed. Under Oregon law, local
governments can be held accountable for that diminution in
value. What we call measure 49 holds that any Government entity
that downzones or reduces by regulatory measures the value of a
piece of property must provide compensation to the property
owner for that diminution in value.
Many communities simply will not have the resources to
cover that, and may consider, as a result, dropping out of the
NFIP. But due to the mandatory requirements for building for a
homeowner in a flood plain, dropping out of the NFIP could
result in the homeowner defaulting on their mortgage if they
can't afford or access the high cost of private flood
insurance.
The courts have ruled that both mapping and the NFIP's
minimum eligibility requirement criteria are discretionary. And
therefore, FEMA must consult with the National Marine Fisheries
Service. NAHB's position is that those supporting components
should be labeled nondiscretionary, and that FEMA should not be
required to consult. The maps that FEMA prepares are based
solely on technical evaluations of the base flood elevation.
FEMA is drawing a line on a map based on science, math, and
engineering. It cannot and should not be required to draw that
line simply to benefit endangered species.
Under the NMFS BiOp, if a landowner or local government
seeks changes or revisions to areas in existing flood plain
maps, FEMA would not be able to process that request until the
owner demonstrates that all potential impacts to endangered
species or the flood plain have been fully mitigated.
FEMA does not authorize or approve the construction of
structures or the replacement of fill in or around flood
plains, and FEMA does not require what mitigation is required.
FEMA's role is to ensure that the information depicted on the
maps is accurate and scientifically sound.
NAHB also believes that the minimum eligibility criteria
for communities to participate in NFIP should also be
nondiscretionary. The BiOp requires the square footage of new
structures to be 10 percent or less of the average lot size.
And to give you a sense of that, in the Pacific States,
according to the Census Bureau data, the average size of a lot
is 6,525 square feet. Under this requirement in the BiOp, that
reduces the size of a single-story home to 652 square feet.
Now, in Oregon, where the average lot sizes are 4,000 to
5,000 square feet and 2,500-square-foot lots are not uncommon,
that same 10 percent coverage requirement would have houses
with a first floor--or a one-story house of 250 square feet.
Compared on a national basis, the average home size is 2,500
square feet. That sort of a 10-percent requirement will
dramatically hinder growth in communities where families want
to live, and tramples on local government zoning authorities.
These changes are occurring on a State-by-State basis, but
they have national implications to the National Flood Insurance
Program. Three States are currently engaged in consultation:
Florida, California, and Arizona. There are billions of dollars
of home value and remodeling costs at risk. For those States
combined, NAHB estimates over $400 billion of home values and
over $4 billion in remodeling spending is potentially at risk.
Nationwide, that would be over $1 trillion. And we add in the
proposal of the Atlantic sturgeon potentially to the protected
species list, it is possible that States from Georgia to Maine
may be next on the NMFS consultation list.
For a lot of homebuilders, we already have to go through
section 7 consultation in the development process. That
protects endangered species under existing law. That is
currently on the books. We don't believe this adds anything.
And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, we
appreciate very much the opportunity to put these concerns in
front of you, and look forward to working with you, going
forward. I would be glad to take any questions.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chandler. And again, this is an
important issue. Any time that the Federal Government tries to
expand an agency's powers without congressional authority, and
go beyond the mission of FEMA, it is troubling. And just the
last words you said there, Mr. Chandler, it can be very, very
damaging to development, to the economy, to job creation, which
is important to all of us.
And this is happening right in Mr. DeFazio's State, in his
backyard. So I am going to forgo my questions. I am going to
yield Mr. DeFazio my 5 minutes so he has a full 10 minutes to
really get into questioning here, because he knows the
situation. And so I will leave it to him to use my 5 minutes.
So, Mr. DeFazio, I yield to you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would point out
that, well, first, let me--a couple of questions of FEMA, and
then I will point something out.
Mr. Grimm, does FEMA have the authority to regulate
privately funded development on private lands under the NFIP?
Mr. Grimm. [No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. A simple yes or no would do.
Mr. Grimm. No.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, good, thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. Now, you are going to be required, because of
the RPA in Oregon, to amend your regulations to include an ESA
standard. Will that change apply only to the State of Oregon,
or will it apply to all of the States of America?
Mr. Grimm. When we change our regulation, it applies to all
22,000 communities.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, all 22,000 communities, which I assume are
scattered among the 50 States.
Mr. Grimm. Correct.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And then, you know, that--have you
consulted with--I assume you have in-house counsel, or do you
use the Justice Department for legal consultations on your
authority?
Mr. Grimm. We have in-house counsel, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And what does in-house counsel say about
you asserting regulatory authority that wasn't extended to you
by the United States Congress?
Mr. Grimm. That we can only do what is within our
authorities, and there are concerns over a number of the RPAs
being outside of our current authorities.
Mr. DeFazio. So then, arguably, perhaps your agency, in
exceeding its authority to follow the directives of National
Marine Fisheries and agreeing to adopt this RPA, is vulnerable
to being sued.
Mr. Grimm. I--yes. And for the RPAs that are not within our
legal authorities, we would seek other alternative RPAs,
working with the States and the communities to implement the
intent of the RPAs as issued by Marine Fisheries.
Mr. DeFazio. Now, the authority granted to you by Congress
is you get communities who wish to participate in the program
to adopt minimum standards, yes?
Mr. Grimm. Correct.
Mr. DeFazio. So in this case we--you are far exceeding the
minimum standard approach.
Mr. Grimm. That is correct, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. How can that be? Never mind, that is
speculative.
But the point is, I--you know, I am having trouble tracking
this whole thing. I put up a map earlier showing downtown Coos
Bay, Oregon. And under what you are being forced to adopt by
NMFS in declaring, you know, this area will be within the
enhanced 100-year flood plain, well, we don't know what the
enhanced 100-year flood plain is yet, do we?
Mr. Grimm. We don't, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. We don't. So this is actually just using the
existing 100-year flood plain. One would assume that when you
include climate change, that these flood plains are probably
going to, especially in coastal areas, become much larger.
Mr. Grimm. Yes. From FEMA's perspective, when you include
the climate change, the erosion zones, future conditions
hydrology, we would expect flood plains to significantly
increase and then the applicable flood plain management
regulations would apply through the RPA----
Mr. DeFazio. So many properties now that aren't required to
have Federal flood insurance in order to obtain bank financing
will be required to in the future.
Mr. Grimm. Yes, sir. When we revise our regulations, that
would apply.
Mr. DeFazio. Now, don't you--didn't Biggert-Waters require
an advisory committee for mapping? Because mapping has been
controversial and, in part, led to the adoption of Biggert-
Waters. Is that correct?
Mr. Grimm. Absolutely. The Technical Mapping Advisory
Council was established by BW-12 to provide guidance to FEMA
and advice on our mapping standards.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Doesn't the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, of which NMFS is a subsidiary, so
to speak, don't they have a seat on that advisory committee?
Mr. Grimm. They do have a seat on that.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, and has the advisory committee proposed
this dramatic change to the rules?
Mr. Grimm. The committee has proposed some future
conditions mapping, some erosion mapping, not necessarily in
line with what the RPAs are recommending. That is one of our
concerns, is that Congress established TMAC----
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Grimm [continuing]. To provide guidance to FEMA. And
when I personally was involved with the negotiations with
Marine Fisheries on this, this was one of the key issues that I
brought up, in that the RPAs must be aligned with
recommendations from the map and advisory council, and that is
one of our----
Mr. DeFazio. But in this case, what is being recommended
for Oregon, which is going to require a regulatory change which
will apply nationwide, is not following the advice of that
committee.
Mr. Grimm. There are differences.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, there are. So one subagency of an agency
that is represented on the advisory committee established by
Congress is forcing you to exceed your legal authority, to
impose more than minimum standards, and to link, you know, the
Endangered Species Act to the NFIP eligibility requirements.
Now, what kind of a change is that going to be? Some say,
``Oh, it is just really simple, you just reference it.'' Do you
think that can be done in one sentence? I have never seen an
administrative regulation that is one sentence long.
Mr. Grimm. Yes, for----
Mr. DeFazio. I mean, usually we write 1 sentence, and you
write 100 pages. So how is that going to work?
Mr. Grimm. Thank you, sir. From FEMA's perspective, you are
right, there is one reference to a legal requirement or a
regulatory change in the RPAs. We are currently evaluating
that. We believe there are going to be a number of other
regulatory changes that are required, particularly around
redefinition of the special flood hazard area and minimum
standards.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So to Ms. Shirley, now, you referenced the
potential conflict. I mean since--it is kind of odd. Washington
State, where our regional office of NMFS is based, was allowed
to go with performance standards, but it is a State that does
not have comprehensive, statewide land-use planning. Oregon, a
State that has comprehensive, statewide land-use planning, is
being told, no, you must go with a prescriptive, one-size-fits-
all solution being dictated by a Federal agency to another
Federal agency that will be imposed on the State.
You already talked about the logistical problems of having
232 communities change their local plans. Having been a county
commissioner, I am quite familiar with the process, and you are
right, it can be done in the timeframe we are talking about.
But one of the key things in our land-use law is compact
growth, sometimes controversial--recently in the city of
Eugene, which I represent--because even though it is sort of
optimal for planners to densify, sometimes the people who live
there don't like it. But the point is, that is probably the
major goal, in addition to resource conservation, as to avoid
the sprawl that many other States have seen.
But there is also another thing where communities are
supposed to have a stock of buildable land, or developable
land, both for commercial, industrial, and/or residential
purposes. So if our core areas, particularly, you know,
downtown Coos Bay, which cries out for a lot of renovation and
redevelopment, is off limits, and the city wishes or has to
accommodate growth, then they are going to have a very arguable
case to greatly expand their urban growth boundary. Isn't that
correct? I mean it seems to me the only option.
Ms. Shirley. Yes, we share that concern. We also believe
that the RPA, as it exists today and can hopefully be
negotiated further in the future, allows for redevelopment
projects that incorporate some improvement to the salmon
habitat without stopping development altogether.
So I think there is a middle ground there. And through the
work groups and working with FEMA we hope to find that middle
ground.
Mr. DeFazio. But it is not--I mean it is not explicit in
the RPA that those sorts of--I mean since they moved us to a
dictated approach versus a performance-based approach, it is
not clear we will be able to do that.
Ms. Shirley. It could be difficult. The RPA is not cast in
stone. It does have a little bit of flexibility, and we need to
find and leverage those flexibilities.
Mr. DeFazio. I just--you know, as a--you know, I don't
even--there is no one here I guess who can really ask the
question. I mean how does Highway 101 become critical salmon
habitat?
Mr. Chandler, can you help me with that one? Do you have
any thoughts? I mean it is a highway, you know, and it is
between the harbor and downtown. And then you have downtown,
where the local newspaper--hopefully they have a reporter
listening, because they are critical salmon--they should just
look around the office and be really careful, because they
might step on a salmon.
Mr. Chandler. Ranking Member DeFazio, Members, I think the
answer to that probably involves working for a Federal agency
that isn't here.
There is no way it is salmon habitat. And that is part of
the problem, I believe, with having a--what should be a
science-based approach being handled as though it was a matter
of philosophy.
Yes, we in Oregon--as Congressman DeFazio has indicated, we
have a long history of salmon protection, of working on natural
resource protection, of having urban planning that has as its
objective saving resource land. To come in and say now that a
main highway or a parkway in Portland or a pick your street in
any of those 232 cities in Oregon is now a salmon habitat is
ridiculous. And that has been part of our reaction to this, is
that it simply doesn't make sense on the ground, as we have
built in Oregon.
Most of you in your States, I know, the people who settled
there settled near the waterways, because that would be silly
to settle where there wasn't water. So most cities in this
country are built around lakes, streams, rivers. Oregon is no
different.
Most of our development is now, by State law and State and
local planning, focused on those downtown core areas, as
Congressman DeFazio indicated, to avoid urban sprawl. And what
this does to that notion of taking those waterways off limits
and now we, for 20 years' worth of land supply, or simply to
keep up with the growing population, we expand out onto the
farmland, which is exactly what the 50 years of policy in
Oregon has said we should not do. And frankly, my industry
supports that, and we are aghast at this, as well, that what we
thought we were doing is now being changed by fiat, including,
apparently, the designation of Highway 101 as a salmon habitat.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta [presiding]. Thank you. As a former mayor, I
completely appreciate the effort and money that a community
puts into land-use planning, infrastructure, development, and
economic revitalization. I also believe that local officials
are in the best position to know and understand the unique
challenges facing their communities so that they can implement
the best policies to benefit their citizens.
Now, from what I had heard today it sounds as if one part
of the Federal Government, NOAA's Fisheries Service, is asking
another part of the Federal Government, FEMA, to impose land-
use restrictions on State and local government. That would
certainly cause concerns and have great implications across
this country.
Mr. Grimm, the Oregon RPA requires FEMA to amend existing
and issue new regulations regarding development in the flood
plain. From FEMA's perspective, what does that mean for people
in my home State of Pennsylvania and other areas of the
country?
Mr. Grimm. Sure, thank you. When FEMA issues regulations,
it impacts over 22,000 communities. We have designed our
regulations so that we implement a consistent, uniform program,
nationwide. One of the concerns that we have, as the RPAs are
written, and the ongoing State-by-State lawsuits and
implementation, is inconsistent implementation of the NFIP. So
we would see, as we implement any regulatory changes to address
the RPAs in Oregon, that would impact the entire United States.
Mr. Barletta. And from FEMA's perspective, what is the role
of the NFIP? And does the Oregon RPA require you to do things
outside of the roles and authorities which Congress prescribed
to you?
Mr. Grimm. Yes. From FEMA's perspective we do have concerns
over a number of the RPAs being outside of our regulatory
authority. For those RPAs that we believe are outside of our
regulatory authority, we would work with committees and States
to develop alternative RPAs such as what Ms. Shirley indicated.
We are trying to work that flexibility to implement something
that makes sense to communities and States.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Chandler, if FEMA is forced to comply
with the Oregon RPA, what will be the most significant impact
on local housing development? And will that be local to only
Oregon, or will there be repercussions across the country?
Mr. Chandler. Congressman Barletta, Members, the
implications--it is a national flood insurance program. And I
think FEMA, in the correspondence I have seen, has been pretty
clear. They don't want to do the Oregon flood insurance
program, and the Florida flood insurance program, and the
California flood insurance program. So I think what you are
looking at here is the template being proposed nationally.
As far as its impact in Oregon, you know, without getting
too deep in the land-use weeds of my State, what this BiOp
would require is a 170-foot set-back on--from the high-water
mark of every stream, including ephemeral streams that only run
seasonally in those 232 cities. And if you think about your own
communities, or what Congressman DeFazio put on the map for
Coos Bay, think of a 340-foot swath of essentially a no-build
zone going through every community, or several times in that
community, based on where the waters were. That is going to
have a huge impact--particularly in Oregon, I suspect--because
of our urban growth boundaries. But even in a State that
doesn't have that, if you think about that land coming out of
production, and then that development capacity of that land
going someplace else in your community is going to be dramatic.
The other piece of this, of course, is that all the
infrastructure planning is based upon the zoning on the books
right now, whether it be Oregon or Illinois or California, it
doesn't matter. Every local government is basing their
infrastructure--water, sewer, roads, et cetera--on where the
maps say the development is going to go if this goes into
effect. And now that development goes out of those areas
someplace else, then not only is the land-use pattern changed,
but the infrastructure financing pattern, as well, which is
going to be doubly disastrous to those communities.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking
Member Carson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Grimm, I understand that the Oregon reasonable and
prudent alternatives required FEMA to change its regulations,
guidance, and community rating service program. Will these
changes be effective only in Oregon or could these changes
apply nationwide, especially in the Hoosier State?
Mr. Grimm. Yes, sir. The--when FEMA changes its
regulations, they will apply to all participating communities,
including over 22,000 communities, and including those nearly
1,400 communities that participate in the community rating
system that are already implementing higher standards, often to
the benefit of species.
Mr. Carson. Madam Shirley, do the RPAs require the State of
Oregon and/or local communities to change existing laws? And,
if so, have any laws that need to be changed been identified
yet? Will the procedures used by the Oregon legislature meet
the timeframe even used in Oregon?
Ms. Shirley. Yes. I believe we have identified a couple
places where our State laws may need to change. And--but most
importantly, the local communities will need to change their
regulations to comply. And that is a huge challenge.
Mr. Carson. Mayor Doyle--thank you, ma'am. You mentioned
that you have met with both FEMA and NMFS over the years, yet
the RPAs were still developed essentially in a vacuum. Do you
feel that either Federal agency considered your comments when
the RPAs were developed?
Mr. Doyle. You know, I really don't know if that is the
fact. Certainly what was ruled was not what we were looking to
see happen. So I guess the answer would be a presumptive no.
Mr. Carson. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Gibbs from
Ohio.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am tempted to yield
my time to the ranking member, but I heard the next one is
going to do that, so I am trying to understand this issue a
little bit.
Mr. Chandler and Mr. Grimm, if a participating community
made the choice to drop out of the National Flood Insurance
Program, does that change a homebuilder's responsibility under
the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Grimm. Not from FEMA's perspective, and not--speaking
on behalf of NMFS. Everybody--communities, individuals, and
State and Federal Government have responsibilities under the
Endangered Species Act. If they withdraw from the flood
insurance program, their--FEMA's involvement in that compliance
with the Endangered Species Act, for example, through these
RPAs, that would not apply. There would be other requirements
that--I can't speak for NMFS or the Services, but that would
apply.
Mr. Chandler. Mr. Chair, Congressman Gibbs, under current
law, leaving out this RPA, if you have a 404 permit, for
example, as a development project or subdivision, you have to
go through consultation. That would not be changed. The only
connection between the homebuilder that wasn't subject to
current law and now is this RPA.
So, if we are not--if we take private flood insurance out,
we are not subject to FEMA, we are not subject to NMFS thinking
FEMA should do something, and now we are out of the program
altogether. So we would not have to do any sort of hoop-jumping
under the ESA, unless we already did under other Federal law.
Mr. Gibbs. That is what I kind of figured.
Mr. Grimm, in your testimony you mentioned instances in
Oregon and Florida where FEMA has had to undertake
consultations under the ESA and the implementation of the
National Flood Insurance Program. Are you aware of similar
issues potentially occurring in Ohio?
Mr. Grimm. I am not aware of any right now in Ohio. There
are other States--California, Florida, we had some in Arizona.
Mr. Gibbs. I guess, for the mayor, this RPA and the
Endangered Species Act with FEMA, this is where it is all
conflicting, the challenges. Can you explain that a little
more, what is happening?
Ms. Carruthers. Sure. Thank you very much for the question.
The difficulty for us is that it simply adds a level of
bureaucracy, time, staff time that--and yields no real benefit
in terms of endangered species protection. However, we are
required to do it because the flood insurance program is so
important to our community. We saw no net increase in the
acreage, habitat acreage that was protected. We simply saw a
greater amount of paperwork, frankly.
You know, FEMA----
Mr. Gibbs. Is this another example of one-size-fits-all
policy out of DC?
Ms. Carruthers. Absolutely. I mean, we--you know, we--as I
mentioned, we have over 30 endangered species and threatened
species in the Keys. We are--for us, our environment is our
economy. So we are very concerned with preserving the best
aspects of that environment, and the--our ecosystem. So, you
know, we seek to work with our governmental partners to do
that, but only where it seems to make sense. And this is a case
where it doesn't make sense, it simply complicates the process.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Grimm, do you agree with that, or disagree
with her?
Mr. Grimm. Could you clarify which part?
Mr. Gibbs. She is talking about, you know, obviously, in
the Florida Keys, you want to protect the environment and
endangered species, because that is part of your tourism, part
of your whole habitat, you know, it is ecosystem. And she has
basically said that this is conflicting with the local input,
it is a one-size-fits-all policy coming out of DC. I'll just
give you a chance to react to that.
Mr. Grimm. Sure. Yes, it is an interesting process, the
consultation process is fed-to-fed, essentially. I personally
had direct involvement in the RPA negotiations, or with Marine
Fisheries, and recommended performance-based standards over
prescriptive, recognizing that that is how we implement the
National Flood Insurance Program, so that communities can come
up with different alternative ways to implement this.
So, it does add a tremendous level of complexity, I think,
to local government land-use decisions and authorities.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Grimm, is there anything that Congress
should be addressing to maybe help fix this, or help--you know,
so it is a little simpler to get the process done?
Mr. Grimm. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to
discuss the complexities of what is going on with this issue.
Mr. Gibbs. Anyone else want to respond to--Ms. Carruthers?
Ms. Carruthers. Well, thank you for that question. I mean,
to me, I think that being able--that directing--well, first, I
am not convinced that endangered species protection is a FEMA
responsibility. It think that there are plenty of other
entities that take care of that issue. So, I am--I would--if it
is within Congress' authority to remove FEMA from that
particular aspect of this, it seems to make sense to me.
You know, conversely, the Endangered Species Act requires
every Federal entity to comply with its regulations. So if we--
why stop at FEMA? Why not talk about low-income housing
assistance? Why not talk about mortgages in general? I mean,
you know, at some point we need to be--we need to make sure
that the folks who can do a particular job well are given the
tools to do that job well, and everybody else gets out of the
way.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
Ms. Carruthers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton for 5
minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure which
parts of the Endangered Species Act apply to my district, the
Nation's capital, District of Columbia, except for Members of
Congress who may be endangered in the upcoming election.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Norton. But I can tell you this, that iconic parts of
the Nation's capital are located in a flood plain. So I have
listened very carefully to this Oregon testimony, and
appreciate it.
Indeed, I have just finished working with FEMA on the 17th
Street levee on the Mall to prevent floods on the Mall and the
surrounding Federal and home-owning communities. Just this week
I had a congressional briefing on flood risks to the Nation's
capital, the District of Columbia throughout, because this city
is located on the banks of two rivers, the Potomac and the
Anacostia.
Now, therefore, when we heard what has occurred with
Oregon, despite our understanding of the Endangered Species Act
and how vital it is, one of the first questions that came to my
mind, Mr. Grimm, was whether FEMA has the resources to
potentially apply that model nationwide, if that is what you
had to do. Because you answered to Mr. DeFazio that it should
apply to all States, that it would apply to all States.
Mr. Grimm. Yes, ma'am. The resource issue is a real issue.
If this applies to 22,000 communities, it is not only a
resource issue at FEMA and our regional offices to implement
something of this magnitude, but to our State and local and
tribal partners that would also be implementing the
recommendations through the National Marine Fisheries Service
RPAs, if we change our regulations to implement.
Ms. Norton. So nothing like that is envisioned, in terms of
its resources. At a time when we are trying to get resources
just for vital life and death matters, this is a matter of some
concern.
I also listened very closely to Mr. Doyle's testimony,
because Beaverton, like the District of Columbia, wanted to
expand its economic development. I have just had two really
huge bills to come out of this Congress, one for the Southeast
Waterfront, the Southwest Waterfront. The only way to expand in
the Nation's capital was to build right on the waterfront. We
are very, very pleased with what is happening there. So, I have
been looking very closely at the land-use decisions around
there, which, by the way, have already been made, and are going
to bring us extraordinary amounts of revenue.
Now, I would like to ask Mr. Grimm, in light of Mr. Doyle's
testimony, I want to get an understanding of public input in
the prudent--what is it, reasonable and prudent alternatives,
RPA, process, why there isn't--I mean in this Congress we are
used to learning from the public. So virtually any regulation I
can think of has public input, so we know what we are doing,
both in terms of our own district, and in terms of the
administrative process itself.
So why isn't there automatic public input of the kind that
I am sure you are used to? And should there be more public
input? How would you go about it?
Mr. Grimm. Thank you. It is a unique process, Federal-to-
Federal. And in fact, the engagement that FEMA had with NMFS
during the development of the RPAs was unique. I personally was
involved with discussions with NMFS with the Regional
Administrator----
Ms. Norton. Because I have one more question, I just want
to know, is it possible to get input like the input, for
example, from Beaverton before all of this occurred?
Mr. Grimm. Yes, ma'am. What we are going to do now--input
wasn't necessarily conducted through the NMFS process in the
development of the RPAs. That could be, I believe, done better.
I can't speak on behalf of NMFS.
However, now that the RPAs are out, FEMA's intent in
implementing the RPAs is to work closely with State, community,
and tribal partners to develop reasonable alternatives for any
of the RPAs that aren't within our authorities, and implement--
--
Ms. Norton. It is very important for the chairman to know
what it is you intend to do about that input.
Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I just have one
question about the flooding of the National Mall and the
Archives.
In 2006, Federal buildings in the Federal Triangle were
flooded. Horrendous pictures--for example, I remember seeing a
picture of the Archives auditorium, the whole auditorium, or
much of the front of the auditorium was under water. And that
is all--IRS employees were put out of their headquarters for
more than 6 months. So I have a real interest in who provides
guidance.
Does FEMA provide any guidance to Federal agencies on their
land-use decisions and mitigation strategies? How do I know
that the Archives and the entire Federal Triangle is not going
to be flooded again, or that they have--do I know that they
have taken mitigation in--of the kind that States, for example,
would be required to take?
Mr. Grimm. Sure. Federal agencies comply with Executive
Order 11988, which--for flood plain management. So each Federal
agency is responsible for looking at if they are in the flood
plain, mitigation strategies to reduce damages----
Ms. Norton. Can you tell me whether that has been done for
the Federal Triangle?
Mr. Grimm. I don't, but we can follow up and----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I would like that information
submitted to the chairman, and I am sure that they will give it
to me. Very important for me to know that.
Mr. Grimm. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Mr. Webster from Florida
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question for
Mr. Grimm. You mentioned ongoing consultation regarding the
implementation of the NFIP in Florida. Can you briefly discuss
the basis of that consultation?
Mr. Grimm. Sure. It is similar to other ongoing issues
across other States in that we are being challenged in regard
to consulting on the implementation of the National Flood
Insurance Program, and its role in private--we believe, from
FEMA's perspective--in private flood plain development.
So, similar to Oregon, we are being challenged at looking
at implementation through the permitting process, the flood
plain management, as well as our mapping standards, as we
implement in communities throughout Florida.
Mr. Webster. So, during the process did FEMA get any public
input regarding changes in implementation to the Services?
Mr. Grimm. For the public process in Oregon?
Mr. Webster. No, Florida.
Mr. Grimm. In Florida? I do not believe so at this point.
This is a--again, similar to the Oregon--that Federal-to-
Federal consultation process that doesn't necessarily include
public process.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. Yield back.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Ms. Frankel from
Florida.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here.
So I want to just--I want to give an example of a real
dilemma that a very, very poor city in my home county has. It
is called South Bay. I am just going to go through some things
that I think we have already said, but--to lead up to the story
here.
So Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program,
as we have been talking about, NFIP, in 1968 in order to make
flood insurance reasonably available to all property owners. We
know that homeowners who live in a federally designated flood
plain must obtain flood insurance in order to qualify for a
federally backed mortgage. And I think, also, there is--there
are other mortgages--even private mortgages, in some cases,
requires that also.
So, in order for--and, Honorable Carruthers, I think you
mentioned this--in order for a community to participate in the
NFIP, it must adopt FEMA's flood plain map and meet minimum
standards and regulations to mitigate flood damage. The flood
maps declare what land is within a 100-year flood plain. I want
to emphasize that, so I guess meaning that areas which FEMA
determines will flood once every 100 years, or has a, I guess,
a 1-percent chance of flooding every year for 100 years. Is
that right, the 1 percenter?
Mr. Grimm. [Nods head.]
Ms. Frankel. OK. The participation in NFIP and compliance
with FEMA land-use directives is technically voluntary, as we
have heard, but local governments have little choice but to
comply with the NFIP's participation, because residents need
flood insurance, and there is virtually--the private
alternatives--well, in Florida, I don't even know if there is
any--is there anything in Florida these days?
Ms. Carruthers. Nothing significant that I----
Ms. Frankel. I know, I got----
Ms. Carruthers. Surplus lines, possibly.
Ms. Frankel. I got booted out of my flood insurance. All
right.
So, now I want to just talk about the dilemma with South
Bay. The new flood maps deem the city of South Bay, Florida, to
be completely within a 100-year flood plain, requiring the
residents of this city, which is one of the least advantaged
cities in our State--I mean we are talking about very, very,
very poor. So it requires the purchase of costly insurance
coverage from the NFIP.
Now, this is new. And the reason that FEMA has said that
they are going to put South Bay in this is because of the--it
is near Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee needs its levees
strengthened, which is being done by the Army Corps, which is--
I don't want to say anything bad about the Army Corps, but I am
just saying this has sort of been dragging for a lot of years,
all right? A lot of lot of years. And now the Army Corps says
it is going to complete the work on the Herbert Hoover dike in
9 years.
OK, so here is my question. Well, to get to it. Oh, if it
is a 1-percent chance each year for 100 years, and this is
supposed to be resolved by the Army Corps, which has been
taking too long--in 9 years--why does South Bay, where one-
third of them are living below the poverty line, have to pay
the costly premiums now? Because they are not going to be at
risk for 100 years. OK, try to give that a shot, if you can
answer it?
Mr. Grimm. Thank you, ma'am. So, FEMA maps flood plains.
And one of the areas of--that we do map associated with levees.
And levees have to meet certain standards in order for FEMA to
reflect the reduced risk behind levees. The Army Corps builds
levees and then certifies levees, and then we update the map to
show that reduced risk. Once Army Corps gets through that
process of constructing the levee and then certifying the levee
to FEMA to certify that so that we can then remove that flood
area behind the levee, and then the insurance requirements
change based on that newly mapped zone.
Ms. Frankel. Mr. Chairman, I just ask a--OK, thank you.
I am glad to hear that. How long will that process take?
Mr. Grimm. After the----
Ms. Frankel. Yes.
Mr. Grimm [continuing]. Certifies? I don't want to say that
depends, but that depends. It can take some time. It can take
up to a year or two. I can't give you a certain date. I am not
familiar with that particular situation. In some cases, when we
have all of that data well ahead of time--hopefully that is
occurring in this case, and I can certainly look into that for
you to find out a little bit more about the case for your
situation, though.
Ms. Frankel. Well, I am glad to know that it will
eventually be alleviated, but I--I mean it is not--you know,
what can happen to a community, even in a period of 9 years, in
a few years where people can't get mortgages for houses, and
you have a economically devastated area now. Could you imagine
the devastation when people cannot buy homes any more? I mean
it is a pretty bad situation.
And the delay being caused not by anything that the people
are doing or not doing, but the Federal Government in fixing a
problem. So, you know, I just--I thank you for your answer, but
I don't think the people in South Bay are going to be happy
with it.
And I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Davis for
5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad I got to
follow my colleague, Ms. Frankel. You know, 9 years with the
Corps of Engineers is like a 100-yard dash.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. So that is pretty good. Try representing the
Mississippi River, where we have multiple levees and multiple
State issues. And some of the concerns that you brought up, you
know, about there seems to be a race sometimes between FEMA and
the Corps of Engineers to figure out what is going to cost
constituents more. Levees need to be upgraded and our locals
are making the investments to upgrade those levees.
And at the same time, like in my State of Illinois, we are
in a different region than Missouri is. So the different
regions have different priorities as to where they are going to
update their flood maps, you know, geographically, first. To me
it would seem more--it would seem like it would be a
commonsense approach to update those via regional capacities,
like along the river, along the populated areas, versus rural
areas. And that is something I know we have discussed with your
office.
I do want to get to mitigation. And Mr. Grimm, would you
agree that States like Illinois have invested in mitigation,
you know, post-1993 and in 1995 floods, you know, we have moved
towns completely off of the flood plain, into higher ground,
because we don't want to have those liabilities during future
flood events.
Mr. Grimm. Absolutely, sir. I know the State very well, and
your State is very progressive.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. I will even take the term
``progressive'' today as a compliment.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. We--Illinois has removed flood-prone properties,
thus costing the taxpayers less in future flood events. But we
are a State, too, that is punished because of our population,
and where our center is, in the northeast corner of the State.
So when we have disaster declarations, where most of the
disasters hit in Illinois, they are in rural areas and we don't
meet the threshold.
Now, other States that don't have the same problem, would
you agree that they may not be incentivized to participate in
the mitigation program as much and invest as much in mitigation
or participate in hazard mitigation?
Mr. Grimm. Could you clarify? I am----
Mr. Davis. So States--smaller States that don't have a
higher threshold to meet to have a disaster declared each and
every time a disaster occurs, regardless of whether it is in an
urban or rural area of their State, are they, under the current
program, less incentivized to invest in mitigation because they
are going to be awarded a disaster declaration, whereas States
like Illinois, high population, one part of the State, we don't
get declared. We are not--we don't have access to those
resources in a disaster declaration that States surrounding us
do, even in the same disaster.
So, we have invested more on the front end, on the
mitigation side. To me it seems there is no incentive for
smaller States, less populous States, a lower threshold, there
is no incentive, in my opinion, to invest the dollars in
mitigation.
And I would--so that is my question to you. Do you believe
that is true?
Mr. Grimm. Well, I think the pre-disaster/post-disaster
mitigation discussion is a very interesting and tough
discussion. As you know, HMGP dollars for mitigation, the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, provide dollars post-disaster.
Mr. Davis. But the States have to invest, locals have to
invest. They have to take the time to do it. And it seems to me
that, the way the current FEMA formula exists for disaster
declarations, it disincentivizes them from investing long term
like States like Illinois are forced to do.
Mr. Grimm. I think there is the other side of the coin with
pre-disaster mitigation, and the pre-disaster mitigation
program that provides States that don't have as many disasters,
provides dollars available.
For example, this year we had $100 million available under
the pre-disaster mitigation program. We just announced those
awards. We receive four times the dollar--in applications than
dollars available. So there is, to your point, a huge----
Mr. Davis. That is----
Mr. Grimm [continuing]. Need for mitigation.
Mr. Davis. That is great. And I have got another question,
so let me reclaim my time.
But I would urge you, in the next flood on the Mississippi
River--and there will be one--take a helicopter ride down the
river. Look left in Illinois, and look at the--you know, the
limited damage because of mitigation, and then look right, and
you will see whole towns flooded, still. So there is a lack of
incentive, I still believe that.
Now, are you--does the mitigation division run the LOMA
process?
Mr. Grimm. Yes.
Mr. Davis. OK.
Mr. Grimm. Federal insurance mitigation? Yes.
Mr. Davis. Yes. It is the process that my homeowners have
to follow when FEMA, the new map, declares their house or
property in the flood plain.
What is the average time it takes for a LOMA request to be
decided by FEMA right now?
Mr. Grimm. I don't have that. That is a little bit out of
my program lane. I would be glad to get those statistics for
you, though.
Mr. Davis. OK, because we have a problem with updated maps
that are not accurate right now. And I think there needs to be
a better, more succinct process in place that costs taxpayers
less.
Sure, we want an appeal process, but I just don't
necessarily think the LOMA process is as efficient as it could
be, and I hope you take that message back. And I have run out
of----
Mr. Grimm. I will. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Curbelo
from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, although
Mr. DeFazio has, I think, dissected this issue very
effectively, as he is known to do, I do have a couple
questions.
And I first want to note I know a lot of communities
throughout the country invest a lot in resiliency and
mitigation, and that is certainly the case in the Florida Keys,
and not just to mitigate against the risks of traditional
flooding and disasters, which we are accustomed to in Florida,
but Florida Keys is also leaning forward and thinking about
climate change and rising sea levels--natural, when you live at
sea level near the sea. So, I know just how much communities
like the Florida Keys invest and dedicate resources to these
efforts.
So, Mayor Carruthers, I want to ask you, these RPAs--and
mitigation is important to this committee, I have actually
filed legislation in support of Chairman Barletta to promote
smarter mitigation throughout the country, but does anything in
these RPAs in this policy scheme promote smarter mitigation
policies that are making the Florida Keys less vulnerable?
Ms. Carruthers. Thank you, Congressman, for your question.
You know, as I see that, no. In other words, the RPAs don't
have anything to do with how one mitigates if one were to
build. It only has to do with where one builds, and those
issues are already addressed through our restrictions such as
our categorization of each property, based on its environmental
sensitivity, based on its location, whether it is near a
population center, or U.S. 1, or not, based on its habitat
quality. So that doesn't really impact--have anything to do
with mitigation against damage from flood.
Mr. Curbelo. And, Mr. Grimm, I want to ask you. NFIP in the
Florida Keys is a way of life. It is just part of who we are.
And I have an interest in representing my community and
preserving a strong, robust, healthy NFIP. Do you fear that
some of these policies could undermine NFIP and perhaps could
ultimately encourage communities to opt out and weaken the
program?
Mr. Grimm. From a FEMA perspective, what I am concerned
about is inconsistent implementation across the Nation as a
result of the RPAs, and as we implement regulations that affect
all communities.
You know, as you know, Congress designed the NFIP to be
implemented at the local and State level where land-use
authority resides, and that is how we have been implementing it
since 1968, and working with communities to make smart
mitigation strategies and implement mitigation decisions.
Mr. Curbelo. So do you perceive any threats to the NFIP as
a result of these issues that we are encountering in Oregon and
throughout the country?
Mr. Grimm. I think the inconsistent implementation of the
NFIP across the Nation could be a significant challenge.
Mr. Curbelo. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hanna
from New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hanna. I am going to yield my time to the ranking
member, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank my friend. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Grimm, what exact climate change model are you going to
use?
Mr. Grimm. I think the best answer for that is we are still
looking at available data for that model, and particularly
looking at the mapping and advisory council recommendations,
and what they would recommend to FEMA.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, I could point you to Oregon State
University, where we have a couple of world-renowned climate
change scientists, who say that, actually, there are incredibly
contradictory models, which are both scientifically credible,
for Oregon, where we may have more or less flooding. We may
have way less rain and precipitation--i.e., you know, we may
actually maybe have a smaller 100-year flood--that is one
model. The other model is, oh, no, it is going to be a huge
expansion. So, how the heck are you going to figure that out?
Mr. Grimm. That is something we are still working out, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. OK. Yes, that is going to take some
interesting work.
So does that have anything to do with--you sent a letter
which caused a tremendous amount of concern that they--you
know, on June 13th, that communities could either voluntarily
impose a temporary moratorium on all flood plain development
that adversely impacts ESA-listed species--that would be like
repaving Highway 101, for instance--or voluntarily implement
interim measures found in the RPA until all permanent RPA
elements are in place.
Now, I understand that this was supposed to kick in on the
13th of September, or--and it hasn't. What is the delay? How
long are you going to delay imposing this new restriction?
Mr. Grimm. So the RPA 1 required outreach and education.
That letter was part of meeting the requirements from National
Marine Fisheries Service in implementation of RPA number 1.
Interesting part about these RPAs are there are two sets of
RPAs, the interim measures, as you pointed out, and the long-
term measures that, you know, go out to 2021. We have some
options, as you point out, in terms of a community could adopt
that type of prohibition. FEMA has no intent to go and suspend
or implement compliance until we get our guidance out. Our
intent is to work with the States, communities, and National
Marine Fisheries----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, what is the new deadline? I mean you had
a deadline before. Is there a new deadline? Have you set it?
Mr. Grimm. No, we have not set a new deadline.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And when do we anticipate we might know
what the new deadline is?
Mr. Grimm. I can get back to you on that, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, all right. And then, there is, of course,
an exception. ``Where implementation of the mitigation
standards set forth above is impracticable, a community may
propose alternative mitigation standards''--sounds good--
``which will be acceptable if both FEMA and National Marine
Fisheries Service agree the alternative standards provide the
resource protection equivalent to that provided by the measures
above.''
You have experts in your agency that can make these sorts
of determinations on that?
Mr. Grimm. No, we don't have biologists on staff, per se.
We can, you know, contract out, for example, to get those
services. That is my understanding of that particular
alternative, and that is one that I had involvement in
negotiating. That is the type of flexibility that we wanted to
get in there. My understanding, though, is that the----
Mr. DeFazio. It is not much flexibility if you include
NMFS----
Mr. Grimm. I----
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. Giving them veto power.
Mr. Grimm. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. You know, I find this all very extraordinary.
We have two Federal agencies that consult with one another. It
seems like one that can bully or overrule you and require you
to do things that are beyond your legal authority, or at least
propose them, and no public involvement.
I mean I am really familiar with the National Environmental
Policy Act. I mean why--you know, this is--it seems to me it
is, like, way outside of what NEPA usually requires by Federal
actions. This is a Federal action. Why doesn't NEPA apply,
which requires a public process, before you propose something?
Why doesn't that apply in this case?
Mr. Grimm. I can't speak on behalf of the National Marine
Fisheries Service in terms of the process with development of
the RPAs.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Mr. Grimm. You know, as I stated, the process that was used
was very unique, that FEMA got, I believe, extra time to try to
negotiate and work through these RPAs to make them more
flexible. And from a FEMA perspective, as well, when, for
example, we work with communities to either develop ordinances
or new mapping products, even, we do hold series of committee
meetings in the mapping process, for example, to get data, to
talk through----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. I--no, I was involved with that, and a
county commissioner----
Mr. Grimm. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. Just one more quick point, Mr. Chairman.
So now that NMFS--and my understanding is they say, well,
we don't like what we did in Washington State, because, A, they
don't have comprehensive land-use planning, unlike Oregon, so
they have much more sprawl and that, but we gave them
flexibility, but it is not working sufficiently, but now we are
going to have a new prescriptive approach in Oregon, which we
hope to apply nationwide to every State in the Union, no matter
how different or diverse they are, or what species.
How do we get Washington State to move--you know, I mean,
what are our options up there? If what they are doing is
insufficient, is their RPA, you know, permanent, with all this
flexibility? Or is there a way to challenge that and say, gee,
I think now Washington State needs to fall under the new
prescriptions in Oregon?
Mr. Grimm. Two parts to that. FEMA believes the--from a
FEMA perspective--that the Washington State RPA is working, and
we appreciate the flexibility in that implementation so we can
work with communities.
If we do change our regulatory requirements, that would
apply nationwide. And I imagine it is--I am kind of speculating
here--it could impact the way Washington implements the
current----
Mr. DeFazio. So existing RPAs could be impacted because of
the regulatory changes that are going to be necessary to
implement the dictates of NMFS for Oregon?
Mr. Grimm. I believe that is a possibility, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I hope my colleagues from the other 49
United States are listening.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Dr. Babin for 5 minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Local
officials in my district in La Porte, Texas, have expressed to
me their concerns about FEMA rules regarding properties that
are bought out via the FEMA program to purchase homes that have
experienced repetitive losses as a result of flooding. And we
have seen quite a bit of it over the last few years there.
FEMA rules prevent the property from being redeveloped in a
manner that would not eliminate the risk of further property
loss. So removal of these properties also permanently reduces
the tax rolls for these municipalities, and also the revenue
for communities that are not able to expand their boundaries.
They have also told me that FEMA's enforcement of property
maintenance guidelines for those properties they have purchased
has been seriously inadequate, as properties have not been kept
up to local community standards. Frequently, the properties are
overrun with weeds and grass and violation of local property
maintenance codes.
So, Administrator Grimm, I would ask you. What are your
thoughts in revisiting this program to give local communities
an opportunity to reacquire and redevelop these properties so
that they can be better put to use?
Mr. Grimm. Sure. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grimm. Under our grant programs, there is a number of
mitigation options. Acquisitions is one of those options. It is
a voluntary program, so that, as a community develops its
mitigation strategies, it will submit--the community will
submit projects to the State, who will then submit projects to
FEMA. And that can happen either post-disaster, under our
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, under our flood mitigation
assistance program that is largely directed at these repetitive
loss properties, or under our pre-disaster mitigation program.
Under all three of those grant programs, voluntary programs
for property owner to participate in the acquisition, the
grantee, the State, and the community--the sub-grantee,
generally--sign an agreement to de-restrict those properties in
perpetuity, as you point out, to prevent future losses.
Under our current framework and laws and authorities and
program implementation, that does not permit certain
development back on to those properties. It has to be
compatible with open space. FEMA--for example, parks,
recreation----
Dr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Grimm. Preserving natural beneficial functions with
the--under the Endangered--in line with, for example, this
discussion on endangered species. Over the years, FEMA has
spent approximately $2.5 billion on acquisitions in this--
across the Nation to acquire acquisition properties, at-risk
properties, and keep those in perpetuity.
Dr. Babin. OK. And then what advice would you give to local
officials who are dealing with this maintenance and upkeep
issues?
And also, if I could, I would like to have your commitment
that you or one of your officials could reach out directly to
the officials in La Porte, Texas, and work with them to address
as many issues as you can under the existing law and FEMA
policy.
Mr. Grimm. Yes, sir. We will have somebody reach out
directly to those officials following this hearing. And in--
could you repeat the----
Dr. Babin. Yes. The first one was what advice would you
give these officials when you do reach out to them?
Mr. Grimm. So I think, as communities and States develop
their mitigation strategies, that is really the time and place
to start thinking about whether or not they want to do that
activity. Because, frankly, sir, sometimes when you do the
onesies and twosies, it creates a checkerboard pattern, and it
creates a situation that you are talking about. So, working
through hazard mitigation planning, and looking at long-term
strategies, and whether or not we--the community wants to go
down that mitigation option.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much. This has been a ongoing
problem, not only in my district and districts to the west, but
also across the Sabine, over in Louisiana, where we are going
to wind up having lots of neighborhoods and whole sections of
communities and cities that are going to be ghost towns. They
want to know how to deal with that.
So, thank you very much. I appreciate you reaching out to
my constituents in La Porte.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman----
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Costello
from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. By the way of brief
background, I used to be a township supervisor in Chester
County, and we handled all land-use approvals. I then went on
to be a county commissioner in Chester County. I see we have
the NACo letterhead here; I was a proud member of NACo. But I
never--I also was an attorney, a land-use lawyer who regularly
dealt with regulations in terms of ultimately getting a project
to the approval stage.
I share that with you because it is usually the case that a
developer and a municipal official will find ways to disagree
with one another during the course of an application. So the
fact that you have NACo here and you have the homebuilders
here, both saying that this is highly problematic, I think is
very, very telling.
It concerns me that the status quo, as it exists right now,
is not going to work, moving forward. It is simply
unmanageable, and it is only going to get worse. And when you
have RPAs that, for all intents and purposes--and I agree with
the assertion by FEMA that additional set-aside land outside of
the flood plain is outside of your jurisdiction, and yet you
are being told, even though you have jurisdiction, that you
must do that, I think that is highly problematic.
And what is going to continue to happen, or what is at
least plausible, and I would submit as predictable, is what is
happening is you will have an organization come in, file suit,
if for no other reason than to simply expand the amount of
developable--excuse me, to reduce the amount of developable
land. And by developable land, I mean private property. And to
Dr. Babin's point, land that comes off the tax rolls.
I don't understand how FEMA must essentially subordinate
jurisdiction on this issue. And I just want to share a couple
other points I found relevant, and then I will just open up to
whomever would like to respond.
And most particularly comes from the--from NACo, from the
mayor. Although participation in NFIP is technically voluntary,
``local governments have little choice but to comply with the
participation requirements.'' In this way, participation
requirements effectively serve as Federal regulations that
force local governments to adjust their policies in order to
maintain eligibility for the program.
That is one thing that you must deal with FEMA. And I don't
mean this to be disrespectful towards FEMA, but there have been
many times, as local officials, we voice frustration with FEMA.
Not in your emergency response, but as it particularly relates
to the flood plain management program. Now it is only going to
become more frustrating. And it is not FEMA's fault, it is who
FEMA has to deal with as a third party.
So I will invite any of you to pick up where I left off.
But let me just say for the record this is not going to work,
moving forward. Like, this will persist and it will
essentially--and it will become, it already has become, a
tactic that is going to be used in every single community, in
every single State across this country, until we sit back and
say, ``OK, somewhere along the line things went askew. How do
we fix it?'' I think we need to fix it now.
I do think that there is a preemption issue here, where
FEMA essentially needs to reassert its jurisdiction and the ESA
cannot find its way in the middle of how we go about
delineating flood plains and implementing the flood insurance
program. Forty seconds.
Ms. Carruthers. If I may, thank you, Congressman Costello.
And I think you framed the issue correctly.
You know, we see FEMA as a partner in protecting our
community, particularly as it relates to flood and disaster
response. However, this is an area that is outside of its realm
of responsibility, and it is outside of its wheelhouse. And we
don't believe it adds value to the process, and it essentially
creates an unfunded mandate for local governments.
Fifteen percent of our staff and of our operating budget is
for growth management, and we only issue 197 permits a year. It
does not make sense. And it is primarily because of regulations
like this that we are forced to comply with----
Mr. Costello. Well, I mean, I would say--I would agree with
you that FEMA--you view FEMA as a partner. I would think that
FEMA wants to be that partner. I would ask FEMA to share--and
the other thing that it is going to do is it is going to drive
up costs on the private landowner side. It is also going to
drive up the costs of approvals and the ultimate cost of
whatever ultimately is able to get built. It is also going to
drive up the cost of insurance for everybody.
But from the FEMA perspective, what is the solution, if--in
a perfect world, what is the solution to how to address the
encroachment on your jurisdiction?
Mr. Grimm. So I think one of the big concerns that we have
are the prescriptive nature. So the flexibility that we have
seen in other areas, or increased flexibility in general, on
the way this can be implemented at the State and local level--
--
Mr. Costello. And by ``prescriptive,'' you mean essentially
ad hoc. Like, I mean----
Mr. Grimm. The----
Mr. Costello. Every community--I mean it is going to be a
different flavor all across the--there is no uniformity, right?
Mr. Grimm. Correct. You know, we are concerned about that
uniform implementation. But the performance-based standards
over prescriptive standards that are reflected in the Oregon
RPA----
Mr. Costello. The final point that I would make--I know I
have gone well over my time, but if I could just make this--I
think it becomes very difficult to evaluate risk when you don't
have uniformity, because you, in essence, aren't necessarily
guaranteeing or providing the same standard or level of
standard uniformly across the country when you don't have
uniformity as it relates to implementation of NFIP standards in
the first instance. I mean, that is just another piece of it.
Now, that would be for the underwriters, but I just--this
is very unworkable, and this concerns me greatly.
Thank you for allowing me to go over. I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The chair will now begin a second
round.
OK, the Chair will now recognize Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank the--Mr. DeFazio for bringing these issues up.
I had a few questions. Number one, Mr. Grimm, H.R. 2901
passed the House unanimously, as I recall, a few months ago,
and that would effectively allow for private insurers to offer
flood insurance. If someone--if that were to become law and
folks were to offer private insurance, would this have an
effect on property owners, if they use private flood insurance,
as opposed to going through NFIP?
Mr. Grimm. As related to the implementation of the RPAs?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Grimm. So it is the participation in the flood
insurance program and the flood plain management standards that
would take precedence----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So as long as----
Mr. Grimm. So----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But if a community chose--if a
community, if a county, if a parish in Louisiana, if a city
chose to opt for entirely private insurance, would this apply?
Mr. Grimm. And withdrew from the flood insurance program?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. That is correct.
Mr. Grimm. Then, no, FEMA would not be involved with
implementing the RPAs through our FEMA program.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK. So we would have dire
consequences for these endangered species. I am being
facetious. OK, so I just wanted to make that point.
Number two, let me ask another question. In regard to some
of the elevation requirements that are in place regarding
having to build above base flood elevation, in this case--and I
apologize, having gone through some of the specific details in
Oregon as much as, obviously, Mr. DeFazio has, but is elevating
above these flood plains, is that an option under these RPAs in
some areas?
Mr. Grimm. That is one of the options we want to explore on
the alternatives. Right now there are certain prohibitions
entirely in certain parts of the flood plain. So, from FEMA's
perspective, that is not an option in some areas of the flood
plain. In other areas, where they give us--we talked about a
alternative a little while ago. That is what we would want to
explore. And that is the type of performance-based standard
that we implement in the NFIP.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. All right, I am going to pivot to
a couple of other questions.
If someone's vulnerability under NFIP--meaning their
actuarial risk increased not as a result of something they did,
but maybe as a result of something their neighbor did, how
would that work in regard to the premiums that homeowner would
be paying?
So, give you a scenario. If I had a creek in my backyard
and decided I didn't like it any more, and I decided to fill it
in, which then made the water run and make my neighbor's home
more vulnerable, what would happen in that case?
Mr. Grimm. So, under the flood plain management
regulations, that would be in a--going along with the scenario
here, that would be--fill in the flood way that the local
community would have to go permit, they would go through a no-
rise certificate, we call it, so----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Now, what would happen if that
scenario resulted from the Federal Government's actions?
Mr. Grimm. We would have to work with that other Federal
partner to evaluate any impacts upstream or downstream to
eliminate any upstream or downstream----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. And the State of Louisiana,
following Biggert-Waters and the subsequent tweaks that
occurred in 2014, folks have seen flood insurance rates
increase, in some cases, 1,000 percent in some of the extreme
cases. And FEMA blames this upon actuarial analyses that have
been done. Yet when you look at the actual vulnerability, it is
largely tied back to Federal Government actions, specifically
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Do you think that is fair?
Mr. Grimm. I am not familiar with that particular case. The
insurance----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Do you think it is fair if
someone's vulnerability or risk of flooding increased because
of someone else's actions, that they should be paying higher
premiums?
Mr. Grimm. The NFIP requirements prohibit a neighbor--in
your example, for example--to increase flood hazards on a
downstream or upstream neighbor. So we would look to the
communities to ensure that is not happening.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK. But in this case, again, it
would be the Federal Government that is causing this to happen.
I want to change gears again. Something else that we have
been spending a lot of time focused on--I heard Mr. Davis
citing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--right now in the
Federal Government you have hazard mitigation policies. And, as
you have stated FEMA runs, I think, three different programs
that you could--pre-disaster mitigation, hazard mitigation, and
others, where you could potentially mitigate some risk or
vulnerabilities.
The Corps of Engineers has a flood protection program. HUD
did their design competition. Under this budget request
Interior now has--well, there is an attempt for Interior to
create a resiliency program. What efforts are you all taking at
FEMA to try to coordinate with all of these various resilience
efforts and programs out there to reduce your liability under
NFIP?
Mr. Grimm. So some of the design competition, for example,
my staff participate on those panels to look at the different
types of projects.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Do you engage with the Corps of
Engineers? Do you engage with other agencies, as well?
Mr. Grimm. Absolutely. We have a very close relationship--
--
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So in the case of Louisiana, where
we just had a 1,000-year flood, 7 trillion gallons of water
come down, 31 inches of rain in 36 hours, in some areas; there
was a Corps of Engineers project that has been around since the
early 1980s, been around about 30 years. The only component of
the project that has been built is this little bayou control
structure that literally is a bathtub that connects to nothing.
It is not designed to be a reservoir. It is just--it is a
component of a project that doesn't connect to anything yet--30
years, yet this is on track, as I understand it to be, the
fourth most costly flood disaster in U.S. history.
Extraordinary vulnerabilities to the flood insurance program.
Do you see that as being good use and good stewards of
taxpayer dollars, to have this fundamental disconnect and a 30-
year project with the Corps of Engineers, yet all of this
hundreds of millions of dollars are now going to be expended by
NFIP?
Mr. Grimm. Yes, I can't speak for the Corps of Engineers on
funding for the project or where it stands, in terms of----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Last question, Mr. Chairman.
Under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and other
programs, there are many cases the State of Louisiana has tried
to come in and use those funds to help protect entire
communities, not just elevate individual homes, which does have
a role in some cases. But let's keep in mind, when flood is
coming, you elevate individual homes, the homes are now
islands. Their cars are flooded, they can't get to the job,
grocery stores, or whatever else.
Do you think it is reasonable to restrict or prevent Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funds to be used to build out these
federally authorized projects that Congress itself at some
point said was worthwhile and in the public interest? Do you
think that that duplication of benefits or restriction or
prohibition on using those funds is--really makes much sense?
Mr. Grimm. Well, right now we are prohibited from using the
dollars for----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I am aware of what right now is,
but I am wondering if you think that is reasonable policy.
Mr. Grimm. It is----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. To leave a project in the
construction process for 30 or 40 years, leave people
vulnerable. You got money on the table, design for resilience,
but then prohibiting them from building a project that
achieves----
Mr. Grimm. Yes, it is the current law that we have to
follow.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But that wasn't my question. Do
you think it is appropriate? Do you think it is reasonable?
Mr. Grimm. I think the funds that FEMA has for mitigation
that we work through State and local governments that then
prioritize--so, for example, in Louisiana right now we are
going to work very closely with the State of Louisiana to
develop mitigation strategies that may involve flood control
projects at the local or State level, or mitigation strategies
for individual homeowners. We will certainly coordinate with
the Corps of Engineers on a Federal project. However, we are
prohibited from cost sharing on those projects, by law.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So you think it is unreasonable.
You agree with me. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. I now recognize Mr. DeFazio for an additional
5 minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first I
would like to ask unanimous consent to put three letters in the
record. One is from the Governor of the State of Oregon,
expressing concerns about the potential implementation and
concerns with the RPA. One is from myself, listing many
concerns about this. And the third is from the Oregon
delegation, or from six Members of the Oregon delegation, also
expressing concern.
Mr. Barletta. So ordered.
[The letters referenced by Congressman DeFazio are on pages 85-
92.]
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, Ms. Shirley, under Oregon law, measure 49 requires
local communities to compensate property owners for any portion
of land taken. What is going to happen with that under this
proposal, this proposed RPA?
Ms. Shirley. Yes. We are evaluating that, the measure 49
issue at my office. And measure 49 has a off-ramp for
activities that reduce hazards. And so, to the extent to which
the RPAs reduce hazard, they would likely not be measure 49----
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, but the whole intent of this RPA is not
hazards. That is the problem----
Ms. Shirley. Yes, exactly. That is where I was going next.
But if the RPA does not directly relate to hazard reduction,
then there could potentially be measure 49 claims.
Mr. DeFazio. So, large areas, as the mayor of Beaverton
mentioned--I was just looking at more maps in Coos Bay, where
there has been State and local investment for hopeful massive
redevelopment--and those areas become unbuildable, then the
State is potentially on the hook for those costs.
Ms. Shirley. That is exactly why we want to work with FEMA
to----
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but FEMA is being forced to do this by
NMFS, and----
Ms. Shirley. Well, FEMA and NMFS. But yes, it is our
intention not to create unbuildable lands.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Ms. Shirley. To the maximum extent that we are able to do.
But we do have that----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But without flexibility, as we have
heard many times from the Administrator, that is going to be
very hard to do.
Ms. Shirley. It could be difficult.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Ms. Shirley. It is going to be a tough road to hoe.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Mr. Chandler, you also mentioned the
takings issue. Do you want to----
Mr. Chandler. Mr. Chair, Congressman DeFazio, yes, that is
a--should be a very great concern for local governments and the
State, because it is part of Oregon State law. And as one of
the examples of things that NMFS simply didn't ask about when
they were doing this because of the lack of consultation with
State or local governments--you asked an earlier question about
the options that were available.
One of the reasons that nothing has happened on the
moratorium side, for example, is that Oregon statutes are very
restrictive about when a local government can declare a
development moratorium. Keeping NMFS happy is not one of the
provisions.
So, we simply cannot do that in Oregon. The measure 49
issue, the land-use issue, all of this adds up to exactly why
we are very happy this issue is in front of this Congress. This
needs to be resolved. This is causing--if it does forward the
way it is written, with the best intentions of FEMA and the
State notwithstanding, it is going to cause tremendous damage:
policy damage, financial damage, local governments, private
sector, across the board. And as Mayor Carruthers has
indicated, in her district, probably with very little impact on
the actual species, it is purported to be the basis for the
regulation in the first place.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. I just want to go back to that again,
Mayor. I mean you went through a process that went on for how
long?
Ms. Carruthers. Thank you, Congressman DeFazio. Well, let's
see. Probably since 1990, frankly, when the environmental
groups sued the Government, sued FEMA and NFIP. We were not
party to that suit. There was a settlement agreement between
NFIP and Fish and Wildlife that resulted in these RPAs that we
now are forced to enforce.
But in the 15 years that it took for this suit to get--to
be finalized, and the settlement to be reached, we had already
been in the process of updating our comprehensive plan to
protect endangered species. And, frankly, everything that is in
the RPAs was simply taken from our data and our regulations and
repackaged and given back to us to enforce in a new way.
So, it literally resulted in no net value to the process,
no net improvement in protection of endangered species that we
already care very much about.
Mr. DeFazio. And I assume there was some cost associated
with this.
Ms. Carruthers. There is cost and, frankly, I haven't added
it up. But as I mentioned earlier, we have a huge growth
management department, and we have essentially no growth in our
country. We have property owners that have not been able to--
that were not able to build.
And it also, you know, contributes to our issues with
takings, as Mr. Chandler said, as well. We have huge takings
issues in our county, and we litigate against those. So it has
been quite a burden on our residents.
Mr. DeFazio. And no net gain or----
Ms. Carruthers. Improvement.
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. Substantial change. That is just
extraordinary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. And I would like to thank you all
for your testimony. Your comments have been helpful to today's
discussion.
If there are no further questions, I would 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 be submitted to them in writing, and
unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
any additional comments and information submitted by Members or
witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered. I would like to thank our
witnesses again for their testimony today. If no other Members
have anything to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]