high tide was 10.5 feet above sea level. This number was seriously skewed by the coastal storm referred to as "the Blizzard of "78." The line from which MCZM would measure erosion would be a contour line on a map representing 10.5 feet above sea level 15 years ago. Erosion then would be measured as a linear distance (horizontal) from a height of 10.5 feet above sea level. It appears that Massachusetts would designate any elevation below 10.5 ft as already under water and start delineating erosion landward from the 10.5 ft line. The bluffs of Manomet in Plymouth, Massachusetts, which have suffered severe erosion recently, would be well above the 10.5 ft elevation while properties with elevations below 10.5 ft that might never have suffered a flood loss could be considered eroding. Using elevation as a presumption of erosion could cause the entire State of Florida to be designated as an erosion zone. "HOW HIGH IS HIGH?" While there is a direct correlation between elevation and frequency of flooding, there is not a direct correlation between elevation and erosion. In fact, it is often unstable bluffs, high above sea level, that suffer sudden, and therefore dangerous, erosion. Erosion is caused by a combination of material type, exposure, ocean bottom conditions adjacent to the shore and weather and more. Proper evaluation of erosion involves structural, geological, hydrological and soil engineering, as well as wave mechanics. Erosion is site specific. "NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T!" Massachusetts' choice of an elevation as the line from which to measure erosion, or the choice of a vegetation line or a dune crest, all represent natural elements subject to movement by erosion or accretion. These movable benchmarks do not offer any permanency over the proposed 30and 60-year time frames. More importantly, this type of benchmark, particularly in the case of an elevation, does not offer the homeowner, potential homebuyer, real estate agent, or local official a readily identifiable and inarguable measure of erosion. Actual erosion must be measured linearly (horizontally). The distance from a fixed benchmark like a seawall, street centerline or foundation corner to the high water line, measured over a period of years would show the actual average erosion rate for that period of years. "SHELL GAME" It should be understood that the actual erosion rate for the first 2 years of a 30-year period could be completely different than the erosion rate for the last 2 years of the same 30year period. In determining actual erosion rates the number represents an average. The projection of the actual average erosion rate forward to predict the next thirty years' erosion represents a mathematical possibility with a percentage of error that cannot be quantified without predicting the next thirty years' weather. We have attached Figure 6-1, page 127, of Managing Coastal Erosion, prepared for FEMA by the National Academy Press to demonstrate the phenomenon. (See Appendix C.) "YOU NEED A Phd!" The inherent problem of delineating erosion zones was well illustrated during the September 14th hearing as Senator Kerry repeatedly asked the question "Why should the Federal Government insure property that will be gone in thirty years?" The Senator's question illustrates the common misinter pretation of the meaning of "erosion zones." Predicted 30- and 60year erosion rates represent only a percentage of possibility that erosion might occur. Senator Kerry, the author of S. 1405, does not understand the math, how can homeowners, homebuyers, realtors and town officials be expected to. "NATIONAL BUCKS VS. LOCAL BENCHES." Another problem, illustrated by the comparison between Florida and Massachusetts, is that Florida could, and most likely would, choose a different benchmark for measuring erosion than Massachusetts. The erosion insurance premium rates would be set nationally while the erosion rates would be set locally. The result would be some States would carry a heavier premium burden than others based upon the benchmark chosen by the individual State. "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!" We have attached a letter from Mr. John DeRugeris, Principal Engineer and President of Coast Line Engineering of Mattapoisett, Massachusetts. Coast Line Engineering is a national company with additional offices in Washington and California. Mr. DeRugeris estimates that the cost of coastline mapping is, at a minimum, $560 per thousand feet. (See Appendix D.) At that rate, accurate mapping of the coasts of the United States would cost anywhere from $250 million to $750 million rather than the $25 million that the S. 1405 authorizes. Mr. DeRugeris states in his letter: "It appears that if this program intends to stay within budget only a crude study will be performed that will result in a rate of erosion map that will be largely unreliable, inaccurate, unfair, and would be continually challenged." “IF THE FLÓODS DON'T GET YA THE GÖV’MT WILL!” We have attached a letter from a homeowner from Scituate, Massachusetts. The home is located in an Upton Jones buyout area, Peggotty Beach, that would most assuredly be designated an erosion zone. (See Appendix E.) The homeowner has already complied with FEMA standards by elevating the home. The mitigation has proven successful. The home suffered no losses during the last three severe storms to hit the Massachusetts' coast while neighboring pre-FIRM homes were lost. What further can be gained by mapping erosion and charging this homeowner thousands more dollars for flood insurance? The experiences of this homeowner demonstrate that construction standards are what is needed to eliminate losses and the mechanism is already in place to require those construction standards. "I'M FROM MISSOURI!" In conclusion we ask you to weigh the negative impacts of erosion zones vs. the as yet to be demonstrated positive impacts of erosion zones. There has been plenty of evidence submitted to demonstrate that the National Flood Insurance Program works as intended by requiring coastal property owners to shoulder the costs of their own disaster assistance. There is evidence that erosion zones will devalue property, that erosion zones will be expensive ($250 million for mapping not $25 million), and that litigation will result from inaccurate erosion zones coupled with astronomical insurance premiums. However, there has been no evidence submitted that erosion zones are needed, to the contrary, the FIA has testified that mapping, delineation and charging for erosion will not improve the solvency of the fund, and despite much discussion of the "environmental benefits" of mapping erosion zones those benefits remain illusive. "FOR SALE: ONE MANSION $185K!" The National Flood Insurance Program has been repeatedly referred to as "a welfare program for the rich." Nothing could be further from the truth, and the proof is in the amount of insurance provided by the program. The current maximum amount available for residential property is $185,000, hardly the value of a mansion! Equal access to our coasts includes home ownership. Withdrawal of affordable flood insurance for the middle class now would effectively revoke access to the coasts for all but the wealthy. APPENDIX A) National Association of Realtors, letter dated October 26, 1993. B) Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Hazard? poster. C) Managing Coastal Erosion, National Academy Press 1990 Prepared by National Research Council D) John DeRugeris, PE & President Coast Line Engineering, letter dated November 4, 1993. E) William P. Slocum, Scituate, MA, homeowner, letter dated November 2, 1993 F) Revised definition of Repetitive Loss submitted by Marshfield Coastal Advisory Committee. As the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee prepares to consider S. 1405, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® wishes to express our major concerns with the bill and support for amendments to the proposed flood insurance reform legislation. As you know, NAR endoood S. 1405 in testimony before the Housing Subcommittee in September, but regrettably we must rescind that support in light of new information that has recently become available. At the time of our testimony we felt that since S. 1405 did not restrict the rights of property owners to develop their land, that it merited our support. We based our support on the fact that the bill language only addressed the denial of federal flood insurance for certain classes of new structures in the 30- and 60-year zones. Supposedly, existing structures, other than those who were considered repetitive losses," would be unaffected by S. 1405. There were, at the time, no references in S. 1405 to the use of erosion hazard zones as justification for increasing premiums for existing, non-repetitive loc, structures. In our testimony, we expressed concern that we had repeatedly been able to get any accurate predictions from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as to the impact of S. 1405 with regard to the number of properties covered and the impact on premiums Unfortunately, since our endorsement, information has come to light showing that FEMA will use the mapping of the 30- and 60-year zones to justify the imposition of astronomical increases on dating structures, once the fines have been delineated. As you can see from the attached FEMA document, premiums could rise to over $20,000 per year for certain classes of properties in crosion hazard zones. If such premiums were escrowed by the leader, as required under S. 1405, in the most extreme cases the monthly flood insurance premium for some properties could actually cood the monthly payment for principal and interest on the property! Premiums at such exorbitant rates, will make it imposable for any but the most wealthy Individuals to qualify for a mortgage in coastal communities. Rate increases, such as evidenced in this FEMA document, would have a chilling effect on housing affordability and home values, and will devastate the tax bases of constal communities. And, if the true intent of this legislation is to broaden the risk pool and encourage participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), we would argue that this legislation will have the opposite effect. In fact the most recent B |