THE INSIDER
A Publication for
Members
The Association of State Floodplain Managers
March 2005
2809 Fish Hatchery Rd. Madison, WI 53713 www.floods.org
608-274-0123 Fax: 608-274-0696 memberhelp@floods.org
Executive Director’s Report –
Larry Larson, CFM
Flood Map Program Moving, but at Crossroads
A prime activity and concern for all of us in floodplain
management these days centers around the Map
Modernization efforts. There is continuing good news
regarding funding for Map Mod. The Administration’s FY
06 proposed budget for FEMA again contains $200 million
for Map Mod. This will continue the program at the level
of last year. Communities and states are participating with
enthusiasm because for the first time in years (almost
decades) there is some real money to upgrade the maps.
However, there are some clouds on the horizon. Accurate
maps will not be produced unless some modifications are
made to the key metrics (key performance indicators)
driving the map mod program. Those current metrics are:
time frame/scope; money, and quality. FEMA’s current
indicators are: (1) map 100% of the nation in 5 years (2)
cost of $750 million to a billion that was estimated in 199697, and (3) to ensure a basic (or foundational) level of
quality, all floodplains identified will match best available
(existing) topography, so that structures that are 40 feet up
the cliff will not show as in the floodplain.
IN THIS ISSUE – Click on any of the
links below, or simply scroll down for
the entire newsletter
Executive Director
ASFPM Annual Conference
Illinois Chapter Conference Well Received
National Floodproofing Conference III
ASFPM’s New Pubs
Chapter Awards
A Better Way to Save the Bay
Scholarships
The Price You Pay for Living in Harm’s Way
Taxing Mitigation Assistance
Washington Legislative Report
Proposed Budget Cut Sparks Debate about
Michigan Dam Safety
News In Brief
CFM Corner
Calendar
Job Corner
We applaud FEMA’s move to adopt this quality standard,
which is essential to a successful flood mapping program.
National Floodplain Management Awards
Deadline Extended to March 15!!
The reality is that those three measures cannot be met
simultaneously. A number of assumptions made in 1996,
such as the time and effort required to translate existing
studies from the old cartographic base onto a GIS base, are
not as simple as thought. In order to make the maps
accurate so the floodplain matches the river, we are finding
that the time and effort necessary is more than initially
estimated.
Submittal instructions and format are on the
ASFPM website
www.floods.org/Awards/Nomination.asp,
along with a description of each award
category and past recipients.
1
“Every map that is produced must be an accurate map—even if not all communities get studied in the
next 5 years” is the belief of most floodplain managers in the nation. When we try to match all the
measures described above, the result too often results in digitizing existing data without matching
topography, so an old inaccurate map is still an inaccurate map, only it is on a digital (GIS) base instead
of a cartographic and paper base. That happens because when the metric of mapping %100 of the nation
in 5 years is matched with the money allocated and time, the quality standard is often not met.
Communities will balk at adopting these as new maps without the quality match or limited studies in
critical areas, since it does not solve their flood map problems, nor improve what they have now. The
backlash from communities, states, and ultimately the folks in Congress and the Administration who
provided the funding, may well result in cutting off any future funding for flood maps. Without good
maps, we will lose the ability of communities, and collectively, the nation, to reduce flood losses,
damages, and loss of life from flooding.
ASFPM feels strongly that all layers of the Administration and Congress can understand that the
first 5 years of Map Mod will be successful if we focus on producing “quality” flood maps for the highest
priority communities. This would simply mean changing the first metric to indicate we will map perhaps
65% of the nation’s communities (but may well cover 80% of the population) in the 5 years. In future
years there will be a need to extend the program to the next tier of communities. Furthermore, as the
process moves along, not all stream miles in all communities will be studied, nor will all areas that need
detailed study areas have them, nor will all of the old hydrologic/hydraulic data be updated. The process
needs to identify the priority of these additional parameters that go into making a quality flood map:
developing flood risk information for those unstudied stream miles, identifying existing and future growth
areas where detailed flood study data is needed, and updating those areas where existing hydrologic and
hydraulic data is no longer accurate. The community must then be given a projection of when those
updates will occur. This will allow communities to have good data for critical areas now, and help them
plan for future development so they do not create tomorrow’s flood disasters.
ASFPM urges all members to share your thoughts and experiences on map modernization with
us. Simply email us at asfpm@floods.org.
Return to Table of Contents
ASFPM ANNUAL CONFERENCE, MADISON, WI JUNE 12-17, 2005
ASFPM will conduct their annual conference
June 12-17, 2005, at the Frank Lloyd Wrightdesigned Monona Terrace Convention Center
in Madison, Wisconsin. The theme, “No
Adverse Impact: Partnering for Sustainable
Floodplain Management”, will focus the
sessions on flood mitigation, watershed
management and other community goals.
ASFPM is accepting donations for the Silent
Auction, which will be held during the annual
conference. All proceeds from the Silent
Auction will go to the ASFPM Foundation
efforts in research and education. Visit
http://www.floods.org/Conferences,%20Calend
ar/silentauction2005.asp, for more information,
or contact Silent Auction Coordinator Paul
Osman at posman@dnrmail.state.il.us with
questions.
Downtown Madison, WI - the Monona Terrace Convention
Center is pictured in the front center
2
**Hotels are filling up quickly, so don’t forget to book your hotel room soon! The government rate is
sold out at all the contracted hotels listed on our website. Best Western Inn on the Park only has double
rooms left. Madison Concourse Hotel, Edgewater, and Howard Johnson (becoming a Doubletree in April)
have rooms at the group rate still available. A listing of hotels is available at
http://www.floods.org/Conferences,%20Calendar/Madison_Conf_Hotels.asp.
Return to Table of Contents
IAFSM CONFERENCE WELL
RECEIVED
The Illinois Association for Floodplain and
Stormwater Management (IAFSM) drew more
than 300 floodplain managers, engineers, and
community officials to Peoria, Illinois for their
Annual Conference February 23-24, 2005.
Twenty-four exhibitors representing 18
different companies, and six agencies and
organizations attended.
Return to Table of Contents
Ed Thomas from Michael Baker Corp. gives a
presentation on the legal implications of No
Adverse Impact.
3rd NATIONAL FLOODPROOFING CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 12-16, 2005, Charleston, WV
The third National Floodproofing Conference is seeking presenters. ASFPM, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency co-sponsor this important floodproofing /
retrofitting specialized conference every three years. Abstract submittal deadline is April 1, 2005. To
download the call, click on the National Floodproofing Conference III logo on ASFPM’s homepage at
www.floods.org. Contact Conference Director Wallace Wilson at wallacewilson@earthlink.net with any
questions about the program.
Return to Table of Contents
ASFPM RELEASES NEW PUBLICATIONS
ASFPM will release No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management: Community Case Studies 2004
this month. Funded by the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), and the ASFPM Foundation, the report
3
highlights specific examples of NAI success stories in 11 communities throughout the nation. Available
on our website since November 2004, Floodplain Management 2003: State and Local Programs, and
Floodplain Management Effective State Programs are now available in hard copy. The reports update
and supplement previous reports issued in 1989, 1992, and 1995, and are the most complete national
summary of the practice of floodplain management at state and local levels.
Both reports are available for download on the ASFPM website, www.floods.org. For hard
copies please download a publications order form from our website, or contact the ASFPM office at (608)
274-0123.
Additionally, ASFPM’s 1996 Using Multi-Objective Management to Reduce Flood Losses in
Your Watershed has been provided in Adobe Acrobat .pdf format by French & Associates, and is now
available for download from out website at http://www.floods.org/PDF/Using_MOM_in_Watershed.pdf
Return to Table of Contents
CHAPTER AWARDS
TEXAS
Texas announced the creation of a new award at their 2004 annual fall conference, the Roy D. Sedwick
Distinguished Service Award. This is now the highest award the TFMA gives to recognize individuals
who, through their long-term efforts, have clearly influenced the Association's success. They conferred it
to its namesake in honor of his dedication, commitment and service to the Texas Floodplain Management
Association as founder and Executive Director since its inception in 1988.
ILLINOIS
Lifetime Achievement - French Wetmore, French & Associates; and David Shein, FEMA Region V
Floodplain Manager of the Year - Fred Block, South Holland; and Scott Cofoid, Village of Utica
Outstanding Service – Kay Whitlock
Stormwater Management – Village of Palatine
Mitigation – Village of Park Forest
Special Mapping Award – John McLaughlin, DuPage County
Return to table of Contents
A Better Way to Save the Bay
By MARK GUTSHALL
York Daily Record
The bad news is that we’re heading for an ecological catastrophe in the greater Chesapeake Bay
watershed. The good news is that if the public and private sectors work together, we might just be able to
fix this one.
4
Partnership is the current buzzword when it comes to saving the Chesapeake Bay. Governors from
Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia recently announced plans to launch a combined lobbying effort
designed to convince the federal government to help them fund a $15 billion bay cleanup by 2010 on an
80-20 basis (80 percent of the funds from the federal government, 20 percent from the cash-strapped
states). Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell even promised that the bay states would partner with states from
other regions seeking federal dollars for their own critical environmental needs. The only partnership the
governors didn’t highlight, however, was the one that might matter most in the long run — a true publicprivate initiative.
The private sector typically gets ignored (or even vilified) in most efforts to “Save the Bay,” but the truth
is that the No. 1 cause of sedimentation and nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay is not industrial
pollution, runoff from development, or modern-day agricultural activities. The leading cause of
degradation in the bay comes from poor land use practices that were undertaken over 100 years ago,
which created a problem known as “legacy sediments.”
Following the first permanent European settlements at Jamestown, the ecological balance of the region
shifted in substantial and often harmful ways. The worst damage was done during the 18th and 19th
centuries when wholesale land clearing for timber and farming set off widespread erosion. Untold tons of
soil rich in phosphorus from multiple sources moved downhill to the low-lying stream and river valleys.
The construction of thousands of dams for water-powered mills caused water behind the dams to slow,
and the eroded sediments built up behind them. Stream channels and their floodplains subsequently grew
higher as nutrient-laden sediments accumulated.
The higher elevation of the floodplain is actually the key to our present-day problems. Most floodplains
of the Upper Chesapeake were once at least four to five feet lower than they are today. In areas near old
mill dams, the disparity can be 10 feet or higher. As dams have fallen into disrepair or have been
removed, stream channels have cut back down toward their historical elevation, but the adjacent
floodplains have not.
Streams flowing along straight, high, unvegetated banks are a common sight in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed — so common that we believe that’s the way streams should look. Yet those bare banks are
composed not of the terrain’s original soils, but instead of polluted legacy sediments that erode into the
stream every time rain or snow melt creates a high flow. Root zones on elevated floodplains are too high
above groundwater levels to absorb nitrogen compounds from the water, so nitrogen, too, enters the
downstream flow.
Channels that have worked their way down toward their earlier elevation can’t release excess water and
its energy onto the modern, elevated floodplain. That is why sediments and nutrients have been
accumulating in the rivers and streams of the region and literally choking the life out of the bay.
People fear and detest floods, but nothing could improve the long-term ecology of the Chesapeake Bay
better than more regular (and naturally contained) flooding in the Upper Chesapeake region. Floodplains
are nature’s buffer zones. Our regional water is being polluted because floodplains are no longer
functioning properly. To clean up the bay and its tributaries, we need to focus on the land surrounding
them. We can do this through a technique that restores both stream channels and their adjacent
floodplains. Stream bank stabilization and stream channel restoration are increasingly common practices,
but without floodplain restoration, they are merely temporary solutions.
Here is where the private sector can play an essential role. Corporations, farmers, developers and others
engaged in the marketplace should be encouraged to finance ambitious floodplain restoration projects that
would address their regulatory obligations while helping local governments comply with theirs. In return
for financing such projects and saving the public sector and the taxpayers up to $15 billion to clean up the
5
bay, the private sector should receive streamlined permitting and multiple credits toward fulfilling their
various discharge requirements.
Political leaders and environmentalists must become more focused on developing such public-private
partnerships. More federal dollars are wonderful — if they ever actually arrive. In the meantime, some
states such as Pennsylvania do not yet recognize stream corridor and floodplain restoration as a best
management practice. They should do so quickly, because developers and municipalities are facing new,
tougher federal standards for run-off management. In addition, other Bay states can build on an
experiment that Pennsylvania has wisely initiated, which provides nutrient-trading options for sources
that discharge into the waterways. Creating a “marketplace” for discharge trading might sound
counterintuitive, but it has worked to help regulate air emissions and could help clean up our water.
The Chesapeake Bay-area governors vowed in January to seek partners anywhere they could find them.
They should begin with their own constituents whose livelihoods may depend on economic development
in the Chesapeake Bay region, but whose lives still depend on preserving the future health of North
America’s largest estuary.
Return to Table of Contents
THE MARY FRAN MYERS SCHOLARSHIP
*Applications must be received by Friday, April 15, 2005.
Mary Fran Myers was Co-Director of the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
at the University of Colorado for 16 years until her untimely death in 2004. Reducing disaster losses, both
nationally and internationally, was her life’s work. In 2003, members of the hazards community
established the Mary Fran Myers Scholarship to fulfill Mary Fran’s explicit request that qualified and
talented individuals receive support to attend the Hazards Workshop, conducted every summer in
Boulder, CO, by the Hazards Center.
The scholarship provides financial support for recipients to attend and participate in the Hazards
Workshop to further their research or career paths. It covers transportation, hotel accommodations, meals,
and workshop registration fees.
The scholarship is awarded annually to at least one potential workshop participant, who is then formally
invited to the workshop. Each year, the recipient or recipients are recognized at the workshop and may be
asked to serve as panel discussants, where they can highlight their research or practical experiences in the
hazards and disasters field.
For more information regarding the scholarship, eligibility, and the application procedure
please visit http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/scholarship/.
Nick Winter Memorial Scholarship Fund
Application Deadline is May 31, 2005
The New England Floodplain and Stormwater Managers Association (NEFSMA), together with ASFPM
and the ASFPM Foundation, will grant a $2,000 scholarship for the 2005-2006 academic year to a fulltime student currently enrolled in a field of discipline related to floodplain management or an applicant to
a graduate program in a related field. To view the full announcement, including eligibility and
application procedures, please visit NEFSMA’s website at http://www.nefsma.org/index.asp.
Return to Table of Contents
THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR LIVING IN HARM’S WAY…
As the following article demonstrates, a myriad of issues face property owners after a disaster occurs. For
many, the possibility of returning to normal may still be a long way off.
6
Shortages, Insurance Disputes Delay Florida Hurricane Recovery.
By Bill Kaczor, Associated Press
PENSACOLA, Fla. - Chuck Johnson and his golden retriever, Molly, share a small camper parked in
front of a concrete slab, all that remains of his hurricane-battered home.
The 56-year-old film technician is among thousands of Floridians still struggling to recover five months
after the last of four hurricanes rampaged across the state.
Disputes with insurers and shortages of building materials, contractors and labor have delayed repairing
or rebuilding many of Florida's 700,000 damaged dwellings.
Johnson, awaiting an insurance settlement, is unsure when, or even if, he will rebuild. He has thought
about selling his lot and going elsewhere, but is torn because he loves the scenic lagoon just across the
street.
"I'm like a tennis ball, just back and forth," Johnson says. "Sometimes I stay awake in bed. Your mind is
like a blender."
Insurers have settled 90 percent of 1.6 million claims statewide from Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne,
which also killed 117 people in Florida when they hit in August and September.
But Johnson's is in the remaining 10 percent of property owners still waiting for his check.
His National Flood Insurance Program policy - capped at $250,000 per home - will cover at least part of
the damages, but his wind insurer has refused to pay anything, contending Hurricane Ivan's storm surge
was entirely to blame for destroying his house.
"Those are very difficult cases," says Sam Miller, spokesman for the Florida Insurance Council. "A lot of
them have gone to court."
The storm surge issue is confined almost entirely to the Panhandle where Ivan struck.
As a result, this area has lagged behind the rest of the state with an 80 percent settlement rate. Hurricanes
Charley, Frances and Jeanne did most of their damage with wind as they crisscrossed Florida's peninsula.
Ed Wadley, 89, a retired telephone worker, lived a couple blocks from Johnson but doesn't plan to return.
He's staying with his daughter in Nashville, Tenn., but retaining his now-empty lot as an investment.
Wadley says he is satisfied after receiving wind and flood settlements.
Yet just across the street, a different insurance company denied Dan Brannon's wind claim. Brannon, 51,
an unemployed mechanical engineer and his wife, Gaynell, 61, have hired a lawyer and are suing.
Brannon did get a flood settlement, but he says it's not enough to rebuild to new codes. The codes
increase construction costs but help protect against future damage by requiring homes in flood-prone
areas to be elevated on pilings.
Citizens Property Insurance, created by the state as an insurer of last resort, has been particularly slow
paying claims because it had no adjusters on its payroll.
Citizens hired adjusting firms that also had contracts with national companies, which provide them yearround work while Citizens uses them only for hurricanes.
7
"They gave those companies service first," says state Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher. "They took
the Citizens policyholders last."
Leigh Ann Gill, 45, and her husband, Konrad, 50, borrowed $80,000 to start fixing their
home pending an insurance settlement.
"We're doing a lot of the repairs ourselves because you just can't find anybody to do it," she says.
Getting roofers and roofing materials has been difficult across the state, resulting in backlogs of up to
seven months and price increases of about 25 percent, says Steve Munnell, executive director of the
Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association.
"With hundreds of thousands of roofs that need to be replaced, it just takes time," Munnell says. "There's
just so many roofing contractors in the state."
Gov. Jeb Bush signed an executive order letting out-of-state contractors work without
Florida licenses through mid-May, but they still must meet the state's insurance requirements and obtain
local specialty licenses. Some jurisdictions have declined to issue such licenses.
It took about 45 days for Lifetime Roofing Inc. of Dallas to get workers compensation insurance, which is
not required in Texas, says company president Tommy Vieth. He brought in workers and shingles from
Texas, renting a warehouse here, to get around labor and supply shortages.
The shingle crunch eased during the winter as manufacturers ramped up production and demand from
cold-weather states dropped, but it still can take up to six weeks to get an order, Munnell says.
Those delays may get longer. The expiration of the governor's executive order and the return of warmer
weather are expected to send contractors, workers and shingles back north.
"If they decide to go home, it could be a free for all for good quality skilled labor," says Pensacola
contractor Dan Gilmore, president of the Florida Home Builders Association in Winter Park.
Vieth, however, plans to get a Florida license and stay here because he expects several more months of
work, possibly extending into 2006.
"There's a tremendous amount of blue roofs still out there," Vieth says.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency provided blue plastic tarps as a temporary fix until
homeowners could get permanent roof repairs. They are designed to last only three to six months and
many are shredding from exposure to wind, rain and sun.
Lamar Advertising Co. has come to the rescue in the Pensacola area by donating used billboard covers to
replace some deteriorating tarps.
Some other building materials also can be hard to get but none more than cement, Gilmore says. He
contends a tariff on imports from Mexico is keeping supplies down, prices high and causing construction
delays of up to 90 days.
Ed Sullivan, chief economist for the Portland Cement Association in Skokie, Ill., blamed low supplies on
a shortage of ships, not the tariff that has been in place for 10 years.
8
Florida relies on imports for up to 40 percent of cement supplies but most of it comes from other Latin
American countries, Europe and Asia while historically most Mexican imports have gone to Southwestern
states, Sullivan says.
Contractors were busy, and labor in short supply, even before the hurricanes struck because of a strong
housing market in Florida and the storms have done nothing to weaken it.
"We have enough work for everybody to live real good for about four years," Gilmore says. "That's how
long it's going to take."
Return to Table of Contents
Taxing Mitigation Assistance
In June 2004, the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling, finding that disaster mitigation funds are
taxable as income when used to reduce private property damage. The following letter was sent last
month from the Stafford Act Coalition to Representative Mark Foley, supporting his legislation to prevent
taxation of federal assistance given to disaster victims for mitigation of future disasters.
Dear Representative Foley:
The undersigned organizations are writing to you as members of the Stafford Act Coalition to support
your legislation to prevent taxation of federal assistance given to disaster victims for mitigation of future
disasters. The Stafford Act Coalition represents a wide variety of groups interested in mitigation activities
and has been the leading coalition working with Congress on issues related to disaster mitigation for over
five years. This bill would make clear that federal disaster mitigation funds should not be taxable.
Additionally, this legislation has implications for upcoming hazard mitigation deadlines associated with
the disaster aid packages for recent hurricanes and also for tax returns for 2004 that taxpayers will begin
filing in January 2005. We believe urgent action must be taken on this bill as soon as possible, especially
given the dramatic disasters that the nation has faced in the last year.
The Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling on June 29, 2004 finding that disaster mitigation funds are
taxable as income when used to reduce private property damage. Up until this ruling, disaster victims who
took advantage of mitigation opportunities to prevent future losses were not taxed by the federal
government. This recent ruling will create a disincentive that will discourage disaster victims from taking
advantage of steps to reduce the costs of future disasters, protect property and prevent the loss of lives.
With so many open presidentially declared disasters, the matter requires immediate reversal and
clarification by Congress.
Your legislation would resolve the problems created by taxing mitigation assistance. According
to the Department of the Treasury, some state and local governments are already reporting that disaster
victims are declining assistance because the assistance will be taxable. As a result, the National Flood
Insurance Fund and the Disaster Relief Fund will continue to be burdened by losses that may have been
preventable with appropriate mitigation.
The active, on-going mitigation programs involved are all administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
These programs include the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program (PDM) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The long term benefits of mitigation
include avoidance or minimization of public expenditures for recovery. The federal government's disaster
mitigation programs were established as well conceived public policy to promote public safety, reduce
loss of life and reduce the costs to the taxpayers of disaster response, especially repetitive disaster
9
response. While individual property owners may end up less vulnerable to future damage, which the IRS
determined to be equivalent to income, projects are by regulation or statute required to be cost-effective to
the federal interest. Reducing damage to private property will reduce use of the casualty loss deduction
which is a direct loss to the federal treasury. Mitigation lessens the economic impact of disasters by
keeping businesses functioning and diminishing the effects on local economies and jobs.
Disaster mitigation programs assist citizens, businesses, and communities to take such steps as
elevating buildings in floodplains, flood proofing, seismic reinforcement, acquisitions or relocations,
wind protections for roofs and strengthening of window protections. It is contradictory to put in place
such programs which not only protect individual properties, but surrounding properties and infrastructure
and then tax the individual property owner on this "benefit" which extends well beyond that individual
property owner. Generally, what is taxable income for federal purposes is also considered taxable income
for state tax purposes, increasing the adverse impact of the IRS ruling.
If the federal government wishes its disaster mitigation programs to truly reduce future losses, it
must act to ensure that mitigation funds are not taxed as income. The undersigned groups understand that
any mention of claiming mitigation grant funds as income is certain to discourage property owners and
local governments from considering the mitigation opportunities provided through the FMA, PDM and
HMGP programs. We urge you to find the earliest possible opportunity to clarify the law. We hope to
work with you to ensure the immediate passage of this legislation.
Sincerely,
The Stafford Act Coalition
American Planning Association Contact: Jason Jordon, (202) 872-0611; American Public Works
Association Contact: Kristina Tanasichuk, (202) 218-6734; Association of State Flood Plain Managers
Contact: Merrie Inderfurth, (703) 448-0245; Council of State Governments Contact: Melinda Glazer,
(202) 624-5460; International Association of Emergency Managers Contact: Martha Braddock, (703)
644-7082 ; National Association of Development Organizations Contact: Amy Linehan, (202) 6248177; National Association of Flood and Stormwater Agencies Contact: Susan Gilson, (202) 2184133; National Emergency Management Association Contact: Kristin Cormier Robinson, (202) 6245459; National League of Cities Contact: Jon Heroux, (202) 624-3025; National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association Contact: Jennifer Kieley, (703) 907-5858; National Wildlife Federation
Contact: David Conrad, (202) 797-6697
Return to Table of Contents
Washington Legislative Report
Meredith R. Inderfurth, Washington Liaison
Rebecca C. Quinn, Legislative Officer
Congressional activity is in full swing. Appropriations hearings are underway despite major committee
reorganization. Other committees too have made changes in committee and subcommittee chairs.
Naturally, this produces a ripple effect with staff shifts. Often, new chairmen, ranking minority members
and staff are not familiar with the issues of interest to floodplain managers, so there is an education gap.
Appropriations
The new Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) announced that he
would streamline the committee by reducing its subcommittees from 13 to 10. Among the abolished
subcommittees is the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee which had jurisdiction over FEMA
since its inception until it was shifted over to the new Homeland Security Subcommittee two years ago.
10
The VA-HUD FEMA Subcommittee has also had jurisdiction over EPA, which will now be moved to the
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee. That Subcommittee continues to have
jurisdiction over USGS. FEMA's budget, because it is now under Homeland Security, will remain where
it is. Republican Committee and Subcommittee members have just been announced. Democrats have yet
to announce their assignments.
Until March 2nd, it was not clear that the Senate would follow suit, presenting the prospect of major
confusion in passing appropriations bills this year. On March 2nd, however, Chairman Thad Cochran (RMS) of the Senate Appropriations Committee (replacing Senator Stevens (R-AK), announced an almost
parallel reorganization. It is too soon to know how the memberships will shift, but some shifts in
Subcommittee Chairmanships were announced. So that all previous subcommittee chairs retain a
leadership position, full Committee Chair Thad Cochran relinquished his Chairmanship of the Homeland
Security Subcommittee. That will now be led by Senator Judd Gregg, (R-NH).
Appropriations Action
On the House side, Chairman Lewis has committed to move the Iraq and tsunami supplemental requests
during March. Subcommittees have begun their hearings on agency budget requests.
On March 3rd, the Interior Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on natural hazards programs at the US
Geological Survey (USGS). Director Chip Groat testified. Not surprisingly, the hearing focused largely
on questions related to earthquakes, tsunamis and warnings.
Also on March 3rd the House Energy and Water Subcommittee held its hearing with the Army Corps of
Engineers.
On March 9th, the Homeland Security Subcommittees in both the House and Senate will hold hearings on
the Emergency Preparedness and Response division of the Department of Homeland Security.
Undersecretary Mike Brown will testify at both hearings.
In general, the Senate hearings are a bit delayed and will no doubt be scheduled now that the Committee
reorganization has been announced.
Outside witness testimony will be accepted by the subcommittees with due dates ranging from midMarch through April. ASFPM will submit testimony on a number of agency budget requests, notably
FEMA, USGS, Army Corps of Engineers and the Park Service. When the testimony has been prepared, it
will be available on the ASFPM website.
ANTICIPATED ACTION IN OTHER COMMITTEES
House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) has announced that his priority during this Congressional
session is to secure final action on the Highway bill. That bill went through an extended House-Senate
Conference during the fall without fully coming to resolution.
Since it is a new Congress, the process now has to start over, but the Chairman has indicated he intends to
push that along as quickly as possible.
A secondary priority is passage of a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which authorizes
Corps of Engineers programs and projects. The Subcommittee on Water Resources is likely to begin
work on a bill this spring.
In the House, jurisdiction over the programs of the Stafford Act (PDM, HMGP etc.) remains with the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings and Emergency Management instead of being transferred to the Homeland Security Committee.
11
The Subcommittee will have a new Chairman, Representative Bill Shuster (R-PA). Because the PreDisaster Mitigation Act was only reauthorized for one year during the last Congress, the Subcommittee
will have to deal with reauthorization.
In the Senate, Stafford Act jurisdiction was transferred from the Environment and Public Works
Committee to the new Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That may complicate
the process of passing legislation dealing with Stafford Act programs.
Senate Finance Committee/House Ways and Means Committee
Legislation to clarify that disaster mitigation funds should not be taxed as personal income has been
introduced again in both the House and Senate. The bills address an IRS ruling issued June 28, 2004,
finding that such funds should be taxed as income. The Treasury Department and FEMA have been
working in support of legislation to remedy the situation. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) reintroduced his bill
which is now S. 290. Representative Mark Foley (R-FL) reintroduced his bill which is now H.R. 380.
[NOTE: some previous information from ASFPM had the wrong bill number in the House] Additionally
new Representative Bobby Jindal (R-LA) has introduced a bill, H.R. 387, which would extend the period
of retroactivity covered by the bill. Apparently some Louisiana residents have already received Form
1099 for mitigation funds received prior to 2004. While it appears that there is strong support for action
on this matter, it is not clear if the two committees will act prior to April 15 th, the date when tax returns
must be filed. It would lessen the confusion and the paperwork for the IRS if the matter could be
resolved quickly, and ASFPM is urging Congress to do that. A letter from ASFPM regarding this issue
can be found at www.floods.org.
Legislation referenced can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov. Appropriations bills are not written until
after hearings are held and the bills are marked up. Only after being reported out by the Appropriations
Committees do the bills receive a bill number. To view agency budgets, go to
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/appendix.html. Budget detail is in the Appendix section.
Return to Table of Contents
Proposed Budget Cut Sparks Debate About Michigan Dam Safety
By TIM MARTIN
The Associated Press
LANSING, Mich. (AP) After three days of heavy rain in September 1986, the water pounding a Rainbow
Lake dam made an ominous sound Barbara Fox has never forgotten.
It sounded like dynamite blasting away at the southern Gratiot County structure, threatening
homes that depended on its protection, she said.
When the dam finally failed, the rising water reached no higher than the bottom of a hill on Fox's
property. But some of her neighbors' homes were partially submerged in one of several Michigan floods
that September, causing extensive property damage.
"Some of the houses were under (water) up to their rooftops," said Fox, who still lives in Fulton
Township near the now-improved dam. "It gave me a new respect for water. Once it gets going, you aren't
stopping it."
The 1986 floods inspired a change in Michigan's dam safety program. By 1990, new inspectors
were hired and state law toughened in an attempt to prevent future dam failures.
Fifteen years later, dam safety experts worry the program could be gutted by state budget cuts.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed cutting the $350,000 program and farming out more inspections to
private contractors in the budget year that starts Oct. 1. How much that would cost is not yet known.
Officials in the Granholm administration say the plan won't compromise safety. Critics aren't
12
convinced.
"The bottom line is it's increasing the risk to public safety and property," said Sarah Mayfield, a
spokeswoman for the Association of State Dam Safety Officials in Lexington, Ky.
Michigan has about 2,500 dams, 1,048 of which are large enough to require inspections under
state regulations. Those dams are inspected every three to five years, depending on their potential hazard
level.
Most dams are privately owned, so their inspections usually are done by private firms. Michigan's
three inspectors and a supervisor focus on about 270 dams the state owns. They finish about 75
inspections per year.
Another 100 dams, including many of the largest in the state, fall under federal jurisdiction and
aren't covered by the state inspection program.
But state inspections likely would be contracted out to private companies if Granholm's budget
proposal passes muster with the Legislature. It was not immediately known Thursday how much money
that would cost the state's Department of Natural Resources, which would have responsibility for the
dams.
The Granholm administration says difficult choices are necessary because of the projected $750
million shortfall in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
"The state of Michigan is going through a very difficult budget cycle," Department of
Environmental Quality director Steven Chester said. "We believe every program we have is an important
program including the dam safety program. But other programs wound up as higher priority."
Granholm's budget proposal also would repeal portions of Michigan's dam safety laws. That
sparked concern among some inside the Department of Environmental Quality, who fear dams no longer
would have to be inspected or maintained at current standards.
Chester said those fears are unfounded. The only sections of law intended for repeal deal with the
DEQ's inspection role, he said.
"Owners are still legally obligated to inspect their own dams and make sure the integrity of dams
is intact," Chester said.
Critics question why Michigan would tinker with a program that's had apparent success.
The state reported 74 dam failures during the 1980s. After Michigan strengthened its dam safety
program, 17 failures were reported in the 1990s. Six dam failures have been reported since 2000.
"We can't just divorce ourselves from the progress we've made," said Don Winne, executive
director of the Michigan Lake and Stream Association.
Even Granholm says more needs to be done. She wrote President Bush in August to urge more
federal assistance for dam repairs.
Michigan has at least 20 dams with "serious deficiencies," Granholm wrote. Eleven of those had
significant hazard potential meaning a failure could result in death or significant property or
environmental damage.
Six of the dams are owned by government entities, though she didn't specify whether they're
federal, state or local government properties.
"The nation's dams have been overlooked at significant cost to property owners, public safety,
and the environment," Granholm wrote. "The rapid deterioration of these dams demands our attention and
our national investment."
Granholm's letter came more than a year after May 2003 floods in Marquette County's Champion
Township. A fuse plug on the Silver Lake Basin failed, releasing billion of gallons of water into the Dead
River. A dam was destroyed as the water rushed toward Lake Superior, part of an estimated $100 million
in damage.
It was reminiscent of the 1986 floods, which primarily were in the southern half of the Lower
Peninsula.
The history lesson should not be lost on Michigan, supporters of the dam safety program said.
They're concerned about how dam regulations would be enforced if the state program ends.
13
Alabama, at present, is the only state without a dam safety inspection program, Mayfield said.
"It's surprising Michigan would consider ending this program," he said. "There needs to be
somebody making sure dams are safe."
Return to Table of Contents
NEWS IN BRIEF
FEMA launches New Mitigation Planning Website
FEMA launched a new mitigation planning website last month, at www.fema.gov/fima/planning. The
site includes a link to FEMA’s new Mitigation best practices portfolio, which includes over 190 stories,
and allows users to submit their own stories and photographs. The portfolio can be found at
http://www.fema.gov/fima/bp.shtm.
USDA Provides $10.7 Million to Restore and Protect Wetlands in Illinois
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced last month that USDA is contributing $10.7 million to
help restore a vast area of Illinois wetlands through the Wetlands Reserve Program and a partnership
between the Natural Resources Conservation Service and The Nature Conservancy. Called the Emiquon
Project, this 7,000-acre tract of land along the Illinois River in Fulton County is one of the largest
floodplain
restoration
projects
in
the
country.
For
the
full
story
visit
http://www.usda.gov/2005/02/0057.xml.
Nation on Edge: Exploring Why America Builds and Rebuilds on the Edge of Disaster
The Nation on Edge project, presented by The University of San Diego School of Law and the Land Use
Law Center of Pace University, is a series of six presentations that will examine the history, current
status, and future of building in disaster-prone areas and other vulnerable places. For more information
regarding the project, and to register to attend any of the panels, visit
http://home.sandiego.edu/~lawdean/nation.html.
Guidance for Flood Mitigation Assistance
The 2005 Fiscal Year FY2005 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program guidance and the FY2005
FMA Planning, Project and Technical Assistance target allocations were released by FEMA on February
15, 2005. The guidance documents are posted on the FMA web page: www.fema.gov/fima/fma.shtm.
The following features of the FY2005 FMA grant program represent significant changes to the previous
year's guidance:
FY2005 Priority: The FY 2005 FMA priority is to fund flood mitigation activities that reduce the
number of repetitive loss structures currently insured by the NFIP. However, FY 2005 target
allocations may now be awarded for eligible, cost-effective flood mitigation activities that will reduce
the risk of flood losses to any property currently insured under the NFIP, whether repetitive loss or
not. This provides the flexibility for States and communities to identify cost-effective mitigation
projects for any currently insured property, while retaining the program emphasis on reducing the
number of repetitive loss properties.
FY2005 Application Deadline: The FY2005 deadline for States and Territories to submit grant
applications to FEMA against their target allocations is July 15, 2005. States and Territories may
submit applications for funds that exceed their target allocations. Funds may be reallocated within
Regions after July 15, 2005, through the end of the fiscal year, but after October 1, 2005, any "carryover" funds will return to FEMA Headquarters.
14
FY2004 FMA Carryover Funds: Eligible States and territories have until May 2, 2005, to submit
eGrants applications for FY2004 FMA Planning, Project and Technical Assistance grants. After this
date, any unobligated portions of the FY2004 target allocations will no longer be available to
individual States or Territories, but will be available nationally to fund eligible, cost-effective flood
mitigation activities for currently insured repetitive loss properties. States and territories that have
FMA grant requests that address currently insured repetitive loss properties and that exceed their
target allocations may submit detailed project descriptions for consideration for supplemental projects
through May 15, 2005.
FEMA strongly encourages Applicants and Sub-applicants to use eGrants at
https://portal.fema.gov/famsVu/dynamic/index.html to create and submit FY2004 and 2005 FMA
applications. If an Applicant chooses not to use eGrants, they must use the e-Grants paper application
form that can be obtained online or from the FEMA Regional Office for sub-applications as well as
the overall grant application.
IRS Tax Implications: FEMA has received information from the IRS that payments made under
FEMA-assisted mitigation grant programs are includable as gross income under Section 61 of the
Internal Revenue Code. States and local communities are to take the necessary steps to inform
property owners so they understand the filing responsibilities and the potential tax implications placed
on them as participants in a mitigation project and to consult the appropriate IRS Office for more
information.
Alternative Determination of Cost-effectiveness: States and communities may continue to use the
current Alternative Determination of Cost-effectiveness for FEMA mitigation grant programs.
FEMA is currently updating the claims data for certain NFIP repetitive loss properties covered under
the alternate methodology. Separate guidance that addresses the updated Determination of Costeffectiveness will soon be available on the FMA web-page.
Flood Mitigation Planning: FMA Planning grants may be used to fund the flood hazard portion of
State or local multi-hazard mitigation plans (if they have not already exceeded their five year funding
limit) to meet the requirements of 44 CFR Part 201, Hazard Mitigation Planning. A Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan / Flood Mitigation Plan Review Guide is being developed to assist with the
development and review of plans submitted under both the 44 CFR Parts 78 and 201, and will soon
be available on the FMA web-page.
Geo-coding Projects: FEMA requires that all mitigation Projects must now include geospatial
coordinates stated in the form of latitude and longitude. The equipment used to conduct the
geocoding process (such as a GPS unit) to meet these new requirements would then be considered
"necessary and reasonable" as a cost charged under a State's Technical Assistance amount.
Should States or communities have further questions regarding the FMA target allocations,
guidance, or timeline, they should contact the Mitigation Division in their FEMA Regional
Offices.
Return to Table of Contents
15
CFM® Corner
New email for certification questions is cfm@floods.org
This section will appear in each issue of the Insider. For suggestions on specific topics or
questions to be covered, please send an email to Anita at this address in the ASFPM Office.
Certification Information
State
Arkansas
Illinois
North Carolina
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
As of 12/31/04
Cert Contact
Michael Borengasser/
michael.borengasser@aswcc.arkansas.gov
Matt Wahl/
mwahl@peoriacounty.org
Berry Williams/ berrywms@mindspring.com
Grant Pinkerton/ grantcfm@plateautel.net
Carolyn Schultz/ carolyn.schultz@usace.army.mil
Janine Ellington/ janine.ellington@excite.com
# of CFMs
72
Anita Larson
1205
2273
ASFPM
Total
143
119
109
173
452
CFM Renewal
179 of the 206 ASFPM CFMs who were up for their CFM® renewal January 31, 2005 have been
renewed. The other 27 have been decertified and so notified.
CFMs Nationwide
Rhode Island now has their first CFM. Congratulations! But on a sad note, New Hampshire does not have
a CFM any longer, joining Vermont as the only states without a CFM. Come on New Hampshire and
Vermont- Get a CFM on Board!!
Private Sector CFM® Involvement
Much of the success of the certification program comes from the committed efforts that many private
sector corporations are doing. Some that we know of include AMEC, Dewberry, PBS&J, ISO and
Michael Baker, focusing on internal training and education for their staff to become CFMs. For those with
high numbers of CFMs on staff, educational workshops are also being offered to them to help them obtain
the CECs required to remain certified. After workshops are scheduled, they contact ASFPM for preapproval and assignment of CECs. In some cases, to make submittal of those CECs easier for the CFMs,
the instructor or coordinator sends ASFPM attendance sheets and that verification allows those CECs to
be directly entered in the ASFPM files. Thank you for your support!
CECs
Looking for a great way to earn 12 CECs before your July CFM renewal- Come to the ASFPM National
Conference in Madison, June 12-17th!!
Return to Table of Contents
16
FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS’ TRAINING CALENDAR
The following are just some of the upcoming conferences and workshops; to view a full listing of 2005
events, visit our calendar online at www.floods.org/Conferences,%20Calendar/calendar.asp.
March 13-16
8th Annual SCAHM
Conference
North Myrtle Beach, SC
March 14-16
AMFM 2005 Conference
Whitefish, MT
March 17-19
March 22-23
April 4-8
Southeast Land Trust &
Watershed Assoc. Conference
Chattanooga, TN
Tools of Floodplain
Management
Jefferson City, MO
Advanced Streambank
Protection
Grenada, MS
April 6-8
AFMM Spring Conference
Yunica, MS
April 21-22
AFMA Spring Workshop,
Maumelle, AR
April 24-26
April 24-27
April 27-29
ASDSO West Regional
Conference,
Sante Fe, NM
Reaching New Heights in
Floodplain Management:
NCAFPM 2005 Annual
Conference
Boone, NC
LFMA 2005 Annual
Conference
Thibodaux, LA
www.scahm.com
Joni Rennhack
jrennhack@charlestoncounty.org
www.mtfloods.org
Karl Christians
karl@mtfloods.org
www.southeastwaterforum.org/pdf/lta.pdf
www.sema.state.mo.us/semapage.htm
George Riedel
George.Riedel@sema.dps.mo.gov
US Army Corps of Engineers
http://pdsc.usace.army.mil/pdsc1.asp
Association of Floodplain Managers of
Mississippi
www.afmm.net
Arkansas Floodplain Managers
Association
www.arkansasflood.com
Association of State Dam Safety Officials
www.damsafety.org/
info@damsafety.org
North Carolina Association of Floodplain
Managers
www.ncafpm.org
Louisiana Floodplain Management
Association
Dehryl Hebert
d.hebert@cityofmc.com
FLOOD AWARENESS WEEKS
National Flood Safety Awareness Week: March 21-25 – Sponsored and presented by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). To view a list of resources visit their website at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/floodsafety/
Michigan Severe Weather Awareness Week: March 20-26 – This week will include flooding issues. For more information
visit http://www.michiganweather.org/.
Return to Table of Contents
17
JOB CORNER
For a full description of the following jobs, and a listing of all current job openings, please visit ASFPM’s
online job corner at http://www.floods.org/StatePOCs/jobs.asp
ASFPM is seeking a Deputy Executive Director
Closing Date, April 1, 2005
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) has created a new position of Deputy Executive
Director to assist the Executive Director in duties including policy, administration, project management,
Certification program and member service activities. ASFPM is a national, nonprofit, professional
membership association with 7,000 members and 20 chapters throughout the U.S., and an operating
budget of over $600,000. This position is located in the Executive Office in Madison, WI.
To view the full position announcement visit http://www.floods.org/Files/DepExDir.pdf
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission
Principal Permit Engineer
Salary
range
$63,000-$97,000.
Bachelors
in
Civil
Engineering
or
related.
P.E. required. Certified Floodplain Manager Certificate desirable. Minimum four year of hydrology,
hydraulics, and/or water quality modeling desired. Experience in site development design or regulations,
GIS highly desirable; H and H modeling expertise required. Additional knowledge of best management
practices and/or other stormwater-related engineering activities highly desirable. Please visit the ASFPM
Jobs website for full listing of requirements.
Excellent benefits and a progressive leading edge work environment. Position open until filled. Send
resume with cover letter, salary history and professional references to:
Michael Warner, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission
333-B Peterson Road
Libertyville, IL 60048
(847) 918-9826 FAX
mwarner@co.lake.il.us
Return to Table of Contents
18