Testimony of John E. Pennington Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 10 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Before The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations June 29, 2004
Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee, I am John E. Pennington, Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region 10 Office located in Bothell, Washington. On behalf of FEMA, and the Department of Homeland Security, we welcome and appreciate the invitation to appear today before the Committee on Appropriations. It is a distinct honor and privilege to be here today.
As you all well know, FEMA is the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating disaster response, recovery, and mitigation efforts following disasters and emergencies declared by the President. Our programs are made available to communities through our state partner organizations, and are intended to supplement the response activities and recovery programs of states. These programs are authorized under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, commonly referred to as the “Stafford Act.” The Stafford Act is widely known as the authority by which programs are made available following disaster declarations.
Assistance that is made available to states, communities, and individuals following disasters include:
The Public Assistance program, which provides assistance for the restoration of public and certain private non-profit facilities damaged by an event, and the reimbursement of the costs associated with emergency protective measures and debris removal;
The Individual Assistance programs, which help individuals and families ensure their essential needs are met after disasters and that they can begin the road to successful recovery; and
The Hazard Mitigation Grant program, which I will discuss in detail in a moment.
Additionally, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program is authorized under the Stafford Act.
FEMA’s programs are designed to assist states and communities in carrying out their responsibilities and priorities. Our assistance is available in varying forms, such as grants, technical assistance, and planning assistance.
Before I discuss the specific programs applicable to the topic of this hearing, I must point out that the success of FEMA and our programs is dependent on a strong professional partnership with state emergency management offices. Thanks to the leadership of Major General Craig Campbell, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and Dave Liebersbach, Director of the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, we have forged a strong and lasting professional partnership that ensures successful emergency management for Alaskan communities and citizens. FEMA greatly appreciates their leadership, professionalism, and dedication.
Considering the subject of “Alaska Native Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion,” I will focus on three of FEMA’s programs that could be available to the state of Alaska and the Alaskan Native villages in their efforts to address the complex challenges of flooding and erosion.
First, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program was authorized by Congress under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which was signed into law on October 30, 2000. This program is available to communities through the state emergency management organizations, and is designed to fund the most competitive mitigation projects and planning efforts of states and communities, as identified and prioritized in state and local mitigation plans. The development and adoption of these state and local mitigation plans is required under the Stafford Act as a result of the legislative amendments of 2000. Funding for this competitive grant program is not triggered by a Presidential Disaster Declaration; rather it is funded through the annual appropriations process. All states and communities throughout the nation that have FEMA-approved mitigation plans are eligible to apply for the program. Accordingly, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program will help sustain an enhanced national mitigation effort year-to-year, as opposed to previous years when FEMA mitigation assistance was generally only available when a disaster was declared in a state.
Examples of projects funded under the program include the development of all-hazard mitigation plans, the seismic retrofitting of critical public buildings, and acquisition or relocation of flood-prone properties located in the floodplain, just to name a few. All projects submitted are developed at the state or local level, must be cost-effective, and are approved following a nationally competitive peer-review process.
Second, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is available to states and communities following Presidential Disaster Declarations. This program is quite similar to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program just described, though it is available only after a Disaster is declared, and is available only for the state in which the declaration was made. Further, the amount of assistance available under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is a percentage of FEMA’s assistance made available under the response and recovery programs – specifically 7.5 percent of the total projected expenditures for the disaster grants. Essentially, the greater the losses an affected state incurs, the greater the hazard mitigation assistance available.
As with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, all projects are developed at the state or local level, must be cost-effective, and are recommended by the state in accordance with the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Again, examples of projects funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program include the development of all-hazards mitigation plans, the seismic retrofitting of critical public buildings, and acquisition or relocation of flood-prone properties located in the floodplain.
Third, FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance program is authorized for mitigating structures insured by the National Flood Insurance Program within a community participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Projects include the elevation, relocation, and acquisition of flood prone structures. Because this program is funded by monies collected from policyholders, the recent focus of the program has been on mitigating repetitive loss structures in order to reduce the drain on the National Flood Insurance Fund. Repetitive loss structures are those insured structures where two or more insurance claims have been filed in any 10-year period.
There are two important points I must mention related to the potential eligibility of projects under the Flood Mitigation Assistance program: (1) Many of the remote Alaskan communities vulnerable to flooding and erosion are not currently in areas mapped for flood hazards and are not participating in the NFIP, which is a requirement for consideration under the Flood Mitigation Assistance program, even in unmapped areas; and (2) In fiscal year 1998, $600,000 of assistance was provided to Shishmaref under the Flood Mitigation Assistance program for bank protection and the elevation and relocation of approximately nine residences. This assistance was provided prior to the policy change that required all projects to be targeted at NFIP repetitive loss structures.
In summary, FEMA may provide assistance to Alaskan Native Villages affected by flooding and erosion primarily in the areas of mitigation planning and project grants. I will ensure that the dedicated mitigation staff of FEMA will continue to work with the state of Alaska to identify and provide technical assistance in the development of cost-effective projects for consideration under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs and, for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. Finally, if one or more communities experience significant flooding and a Major Disaster were declared, please be assured that the full breadth of our Stafford Act programs would become available. FEMA would ensure the recovery and mitigation programs would be provided with the greatest of coordination and allowable flexibility to ensure the long-term plans of the communities are considered, to include the potential relocation of certain structures and facilities.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to represent the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security before the Committee on Appropriations. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
