FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - September 27, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota:
Subsection (k)(2)(A)(ii) of section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), as added by section 22(a) of the bill, is amended by striking ``and''.
Subsection (k)(2)(A)(iii) of section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), as added by section 22(a) of the bill, is amended by striking the final period and inserting ``; and''.
Subsection (k)(2)(A) of section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), as added by section 22(a) of the bill, is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) the 100-year floodplain, including any area that would be in the 100-year floodplain if not protected by a levee, dam, or other man-made structure.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 683, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for offering this incredibly important piece of legislation modernizing the National Flood Insurance Program.
On the evening of August 18 into the morning of August 19, devastating storms swept across the Midwest. Seven of the 22 counties in my congressional district are now Federal disaster areas as up to 18 inches of rain fell in a 24-hour period. Seven individuals in my district lost their lives, and countless others were injured. Thousands of homes were destroyed. Millions of dollars in damage to roads and bridges which were washed away literally overnight.
Subsequently, many Minnesotans found out how quickly they needed to become experts in the National Flood Insurance Program, so I congratulate the committee for taking up this legislation.
One of the improvements that you are hearing about is the improvements to the mapping of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains.
What my amendment does, we are getting the 500-year floodplains, and they are dealing with areas that could be flooded if a levee or dam fails. But they do not require FEMA at this time to map areas in the 100-year floodplain that, if not for a flood-control measure other than a dam or levee, could flood, and my amendment simply asks for those areas to be mapped.
When a flood-control measure fails, it is obvious that it is catastrophic. Whether it be a flood wall or a levee in New Orleans, or as we found out in Minnesota, a culvert in St. Charles, Minnesota, or a storm sewer in Hokah, Minnesota, the impact is devastating.
This amendment is very simple. It adds one sentence to this bill requiring FEMA to map ``areas in the 100-year floodplain, including any area that would be in the floodplain if not protected by a dam, levee, or other man-made structure.''
This does not put any new requirements on residents living in those areas, or put any additional burden on residents who live near dams or levees. The amendment simply requires FEMA to make information available about the risk of flooding that might occur if a flood control measure other than a dam or levee would fail. Some of the structures we are talking about: culverts, storm sewers, certain bridges and certain elevated rural roadways.
The recent floods in Minnesota showed the need for communities to have a comprehensive information plan on the risks that they face. This amendment would help do exactly that, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this small change that could make a big difference in how people adjust to the circumstances based on the potential of flooding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT