THE INSIDER

The Association of State Floodplain Managers

2809 Fish Hatchery Rd., Madison, WI 53713 www.floods.org

608-274-0123 Fax: 608-274-0696

Executive Director’s Report

Larry Larson, P.E., CFM

Katrina — one year later. Have we made progress?

All of you have read many reports around the theme of one year after Katrina. This article will give you an analysis from the perspective of a flood policy professional. It will measure progress from the perspective of:

1.  Safe and sustainable recovery and rebuilding of the Gulf coast communities.

2.  Changes in national flood policy that will be used by every community in the nation to prevent the recurrence of similar catastrophic events today and tomorrow.

Gulf coast recovery

Many of the reports you read consistently discuss the following points:

·  Katrina-Rita was two different kinds of events—everything gone on miles of the open coast (e.g. Mississippi) v. structures still standing but mostly destroyed inside the levees (e.g. New Orleans area).

·  The Mississippi recovery is considerably ahead of Louisiana for a couple reasons. First, in Mississippi everything was gone, so a fresh start at rebuilding is evident. Second, leadership at the state and local level is providing a vision of redevelopment. This is in contrast to New Orleans, where many destroyed buildings are still standing and citizens are hesitant to rebuild their homes and businesses until they know if the community will provide infrastructure and services to their neighborhood.

Without question the recovery of the Gulf coast will take years. Ordinary disasters take 3 to 5 years to fully recover, and catastrophic events like this can easily double that time frame—remember it impacted 170,000 structures and hundreds of miles of coast. We can also expect many societal impacts from this event. In many parts of the high risk open coast, storm surge elevations will be set at 15-28 feet above sea level. That will result in higher costs for construction, so that single family homes will often be replaced with higher rise multi-home structures, with attendant social and economic changes for those living and working along the coast.

National flood policy change to reduce future disaster impacts

How much progress have we made to update and improve national flood policy, which guides new and re-constructed development in the nation? Almost none!

What makes this lack of action and leadership even more dramatic are the facts: it was the largest natural disaster ever with federal taxpayers’ costs for disaster relief about $120 billion; the taxpayer bailout of the NFIP to the tune of about $20 billion; and over 1300 deaths—many related to failure of “approved” structural measures. The flood policies of two key federal flood mitigation agencies (FEMA and the Corps of Engineers), which are intended to “reduce” flood impacts, actually converged to exacerbate the impact in leveed areas. When the policies that exclude areas behind levees from the floodplain regulations and insurance combine with Corps structural projects that are designed and built to ONLY the 100 year standard, the result is catastrophic damages when levees fail or overtop.

Mapping—there have been new maps created, but not any policies which change how the maps are developed or what will be displayed on them (e.g. showing residual risk areas in storm surge zones or other high risk areas, even just for information).

Insurance—there has been no real change in the premiums for flood insurance policies to date, or in which structures must purchase flood insurance. In light of the billions of dollars deficit of the NFIP, there are a number of such changes proposed in legislation, but it is looking less likely that Congress will pass any of that legislation this session—15 months after Katrina.

Mitigation—national mitigation policy allows 100 year levees to be considered “adequate” protection for highly urbanized areas and critical facilities such as hospitals, police and fire, water supply, etc. (also adequate for corn fields). Katrina so clearly painted the picture of the folly of those policies. It is important for everyone to understand that most of New Orleans flooded because levees where overwhelmed by a large event, and that only a few of the levees actually “failed”. Despite the dollar and suffering impacts, no levee policy changes have been made to date. No mitigation standards or regulations, or requirements for flood insurance for development in leveed or non-leveed areas have been changed to date. Perhaps one of the few effective changes in mitigation policy was when FEMA decided mitigation funds from FEMA would not be available unless the new advisory flood elevations were used for that reconstruction.

Mostly our national approach to mitigation has been to throw our tax money at impacted communities and citizens, with no differentiation for those who did something to reduce their risk vs. those who did nothing. Once again we have given states and locals an example of federal taxpayer bailout, thus telling them not to worry about placing more development at risk.

Does this mean the nation has failed to seize the moment? Not necessarily or at least not yet. The lesson from mega-disasters is that too often, too little changes. Yet there are nuggets that make a difference. Hurricane Andrew provided a similar backdrop in 1993 with very little real policy evolution taking place. One experience however did make a difference. That experience was whole scale substantial damage in south Florida due to wind damage, and FEMA leadership realizing that they had nothing to offer to ensure that appropriate mitigation would result other than the hammer contained within the NFIP. FEMA was forced to relax the substantial damage reconstruction rules, but became focused on the need for establishing sufficient funding for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This became a reality and to a large degree can be credited for the successes of the flood recovery during the Great Midwest flood.

The nuggets that need to be mined from Katrina include:

1.  Need for a national levee safety program.

2.  New design standards, management standards, and insurance requirements for areas protected by levees.

3.  Disaster assistance policies and water resource development policies that better reflects who benefits and who pays.

4.  Actuarial rates for flood insurance for more structures, and added areas where flood insurance should be mandatory.

In conclusion, ASFPM is working with the Administration, Congress, the agencies and our partners to promote effective changes in national flood policy. While some good ideas and draft legislation are out there, not much has happened---and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing. It is incumbent upon the leaders of ASFPM, NAFSMA, USACE and FEMA working with key Congressional members to move forward these most critical policy pieces. It is incumbent on the ASFPM membership to expect change, and to be active with your elected officials. We may have a year left while people still remember the impacts of Katrina-Rita and others of 2004 and 2005. I am optimistic that one year from now I can report some effective changes in national policy, but that is only if all of us commit to making those changes happen.

Return to Table of Contents

ASFPM at the Mississippi Governor’s Expo

Pictured from left to right are Al Goodman, current ASFPM Vice-Chair and Mississippi State Floodplain Manager; Bruce Baird, ASFPM Research & Outreach Coordinator; Ann Terranova, URS Corporation Environmental Resources Management Group Leader; and Alan Lulloff, ASFPM Project Manager.

ASFPM headquarters was one of over 180 exhibitors at the Mississippi Governors Recovery Expo held at the Biloxi Coliseum, August 11-13, 2006. The Expo, which was attended by an estimated 15,000 residents, brought together State and Federal agencies, Gulf Coast local governments, non-governmental organizations, housing and building supply vendors and other private sector organizations to display recovery products and services. ASFPM staff presented a two-hour training on the No Adverse Impact toolbox tailored to coastal communities, and conducted a focus group session on present and future needs in flood mitigation planning policy.

Return to Table of Contents

Expanding the Mitigation Toolbox: The Demolish/Rebuild Option

A position paper by the Association of State Floodplain Managers, (ASFPM)

The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) fully supports the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) hazard mitigation efforts and programs. Technical expertise and funding for an array of mitigation options and a full mitigation “toolbox” are important to communities throughout the nation who are facing increasingly complex combinations of hazards and environmental, economic, and social issues. States and communities must have the flexibility to choose among alternative mitigation options, within sensible guidelines, to tailor an approach that addresses their unique situations as they work to become more resilient in the face of the threat of disasters.

The Mitigation Committee of ASFPM developed this white paper based on comments both from its members and from mitigation professionals across the nation. The paper summarizes the reasons for adding the demolish/rebuild option to the mitigation toolbox used by floodplain managers.

The paper can be found on our website at:

http://www.floods.org/PDF/ASFPM_White_Paper_Demo-Rebuild_0806.pdf

Return to Table of Contents

Streamgage Support Letter

ASFPM recently joined 22 other organizations in sending a letter expressing support of an increase in the funding of the USGS streamgaging programs. The USGS streamgaging programs have a proven record of providing reliable information concerning America’s water resources that is essential to decision makers in both the public and private sectors for a wide variety of planning, design and management functions. The demand for this information continues to grow with each passing year, which is why ASFPM felt it was essential to show our support for these important projects.

You can view a copy of the letter on our website at: http://www.floods.org/PDF/Streamgage_Support_Ltr_0806.pdf

Return to Table of Contents

The Latest News from Disaster Research

Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado

August 4, 2006 and August 29, 2006 issues

Volunteer Reviewers Needed for Hazards Mapping and Modeling Course

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Emergency Management Higher Education Project is seeking volunteer reviewers (i.e., no honorarium provided) for a draft college course at the advanced undergraduate to graduate levels on Hazards Mapping and Modeling. This approximately 400-page classroom-based course is designed to be taught within a disaster/emergency management curriculum. The course consists of 16 approximately three-hour sessions and seeks to "provide examples of environmental models for natural and manmade hazards; provide a systematic framework for examining the nature and consequences of natural and manmade hazards; and examine strategies that may be taken to utilize hazard modeling and mapping for the planning, response, recovery, prevention, and mitigation of hazards."

For those willing to commit to review and comment upon draft course material within 30 days after receipt of a priority-mailed paper copy, contact Barbara Johnson at . It is requested that no one seek a review copy for information purposes only. Within a few months, a final version of this course will be uploaded to the FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project Web site at http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/edu within the free college courses section.

Hurricane Katrina Research Resource Page

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/library/katrina.html

The Natural Hazards Center has developed a Web page of useful resources that examine the Hurricane Katrina disaster. To limit the scope of the page and for the purposes of quality control, the resources focus on the event itself rather than what it means for the future of the hazards and disasters field and are limited to government reports, books, a few pertinent Web sites, and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Disaster Research 460: Special Katrina Edition

There are also links to many other useful web sites regarding Hurricane Katrina in the Special Katrina Edition of the “Disaster Research” newsletter. This special issue of “Disaster Research” marks the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. A number of reports have been released and Web pages created to commemorate the disaster and remind us that there is still much to be done.

These links can be found at: http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/dr/archives/dr460.html

Return to Table of Contents


Army Chief of Engineers to Retire

August 10, 2006


The Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army, has agreed to submit the request for retirement of LTG Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers and Commander, US Army Corps of Engineers to the Secretary of Defense for approval. LTG Strock made his request based on family and personal reasons, which the Secretary of the Army honors and supports.


The US Army's Chief of Engineers is a unique duty position with separate and distinct command and staff responsibilities. Staff duties include advising the Army on engineering matters and acting as proponent for real estate and other related engineering programs. Duties as the Commander of the Corps of Engineers include leadership of a major command that is the world's largest public engineering, design and construction management agency. The Corps is organized geographically into divisions with subordinate districts throughout the US, Asia and Europe. In addition, a provisional division with four districts was activated January 25, 2004, to oversee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.


LTG Strock became Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on 1 July 2004. He has been instrumental to the success of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as managing the Corps' recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Previous to his assignment as Chief of Engineers, Strock served as the Director of Civil Works, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As such, he managed the Army's multi-billion dollar annual Civil Works Program, the Nation's primary planner, designer, builder, and operator of flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and multiple-purpose water resource projects. LTG Strock also spent six months in Iraq during 2003 as the Deputy Director of Operations for the Coalition Provisional Authority. He oversaw the beginning of the Iraq reconstruction effort under the CPA's authority and took part in standing up the new the Gulf Region Division in Iraq in January 2004.
LTG Strock is a former enlisted Soldier who graduated from Officer Candidate School and then spent eleven years in Special Forces, airborne, and mechanized infantry units prior to transferring the Corps of Engineers in 1983. He commanded the 307th Engineer Battalion throughout Operation Just Cause and Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. He also commanded the Engineer Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division, and the Corps of Engineers Pacific Ocean and the Northwestern Divisions.
In accordance with Title 10, US Code, the Secretary of the Army will now convene an Advisory Board that will recommend a list of officers from which the President will approve one officer for nomination to and confirmation by the Senate.