LAND-LOCKED FLOATING HOUSE

June 19, 1997

Colonel Timothy I., Stanford

District Engineer, Tulsa District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 61

Tulsa, OK 74121-0061

Dear Colonel Sanford:

In response to your letter dated May 20, 1997, I question the statements made regarding alleged quotation made by me in a “number of publications” concerning the testing of the Winston Land-Locked Floating House.

You mentioned a February 1997 article by Ms. Wendy Mitman Clarke quoting me as saying, “The floating house concept has drawn enough interest that the Army Corps of Engineers has agreed to provide a test site near Tulsa, Okla., to build a complete version of the home and garage, then flood the area beneath it, Wilson says.” Although we can produce substantiated evidence that a suggestion was made by the Corps, would be an excellent site to conduct such a test any statement in the press to the contrary is inaccurate. Winston has never implied that the Corps has agreed to conduct such a test, although they have shown interest in observing and supplying input for such a test. Further, there is no one by the name of “Wilson” who is authorized to speak for Winston.

We can also provide witnesses who have heard Corps officers state that they like the Winston concept as quoted in the Washington Post article and they look forward to viewing the prototype test results. Again, the statement referred to in the Virginia Pilot did not directly quote me as saying the “prototype will be – tested by the Army Corps of Engineers.” To my knowledge, no member of the Winston team has ever inferred the Corps will test the Land-Locked Floating House. We have always particular agency prior to the publication. We know this has been done on several occasions.

 letter to me.

FEMA knows almost nothing of the advances that have been incorporated in the Winston technology since they viewed and flatly rejected preliminary marketing material in 1993. Have you not researched the latest concepts of the Land-Locked Floating House?

We have documentation that Clifford Oliver, the Senior Engineer in the Program Development Branch of FEMA’s Mitigation Directorate, was quoted in an interview as saying that testing on Land-Locked Floating House cannot be preformed due to “several serious engineering, flood plain management, financial, and emergency management concerns.” This is close to what sounds like a paraphrased statement in your letter. The document containing this statement was sated April 18, 1997, four weeks before the date on your letter to me. Included in this same document is Oliver’s statement, “the Corps is sending a letter to WI asking them to cease and desist. “assuming we have accurately identified your source, I would like to refute other false, misleading, and documented statements from this source.

·        October 19, 1994, Houston Post

FEMA: “We’ve been trying to discourage floating houses because so many things can go wrong.” Mike Robinson, FEMA Program Director.

WINSTON: Basing a bureaucratic negation on new technology because of outmoded policies is an impractical way to govern. Winston has successfully tested the Land-Locked Floating House through two independent testing agencies with computer-testing methods. The technology has been designed by Pacific Northwest architects, marine and structural engineers. It is doubtful if my FEMA director, engineer, or technician has seen anything more than a preliminary marketing presentation of the Winston Land-Locked Floating House, nor have they spoken directly, seeking information, to any Winston expert.

·        January 24, 1995, Seattle Times DISCOVERY Section

FEMA: “what is the threat to public safety if this doesn’t work,” and “how do we tell these telescoping piers will stay lubricated for 20 or 50 or 100 years?” “How do we know the house will go up level and come down level?” and “We are hard pressed to see the need to do this,” Cliff Oliver, Senior Engineer in FEMA Technical Standards Division.

WINSTON:  In the fact of the expertise used to develop and  prove this technology, it is unwise for an unknowledgeable critic to voice an opinion. Winston experts have designed and tested this technology to work. The piers will rise and lower effectively without fiction of bind to save billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and flood victim pain. Each system included in the technology has been successfully adapted to other technology which has been in service for decades.

·        February 2, 1995, Wall Street Journal, Texas Edition

FEMA: “A lot of people, even if they had 12 feet of water in their house, can’t understand why anybody would tell them they can’t do what they’ve always done before,” …. “and when

You do tell people what to do, they scream real loud.” Wayne Farley, a hazard-mitigation officer for FEMA. Federal officials say, “They want eligible flood victims to know that Todd Davison, FEMA’s deputy federal coordinating officer says in the same article, “We’ve going to make sure that people don’t have to go through this trauma again, and we’re going to make sure that the federal government isn’t back here again in five years.”

WINSTON: Mr. Farley, as a public official charged with hazard mitigation, should know that people who have invested a large part of their lives in flood plain areas, do not want to be forced out of their homes or be forced to climb up stairs when there is a new technology that can protect themselves and their possessions in a much better way. Nor would they  “scream loud: if FEMA would “do what it takes to floodproof neighborhoods in the flood plain!” the Land-Locked Floating House is the way to make sure that people do not go through this trauma again, and make sure that the federal government isn’t going back in five years.

·        September 9, 1995, London (England) New Scientist

FEMA: “These structures may be sitting around for fifty years and never be called on to float, and then they may not float when there’s a flood” says Cliff Oliver, a senior engineer at FEMA. Oliver continues, “FEMA’s concerns are that it will be liable to pay for cleaning out silty much under the homes when the floods recede, and for damage from any debris that pummels the houses during storms.” He states further, “Winston’s house does not meet FEMA’s current insurance requirements which states that new houses on the flood plains must be permanently fixed … above the 100 year flood line.” Oliver also told New scientist that there is also the risk that a floating house will give residents a false sense of security and encourage them to stay put at home when they would be safer evacuating the area. FEMA will not permit even a prototype house to be built on land it insures; the agency wants to see the technology demonstrated with a weighted barge instead.

WINSTON: Oliver does not know that Winston has developed a simple and inexpensive method of testing the lubricating, and stabilizing systems at any time to assure proper operation of all parts. FEMA will face far fewer clean-ups of debris and silty much under a Land-Locked Floating House drainage systems. Also, there is no reference in the NFIP or national building codes that require buildings to be permanently elevated. And why would people have a greater sense of security in a Land-Locked Floating House than in the elevated houses that FEMA now considers a flood mitigating factor? Would people not be better off inside a flood home during a flood than waiting rescue on the rood of their home in floods exceeding g the 100 year flood level, a predictable concern? Also the facts show that 85% of the deaths during floods are those of victims, trying to escape the flood waters in their vehicles. We all know a weighted barge will float. Winston wants to construct a prototype to prove the Land-Locked Floating House technology will work successfully.

■       April 18, 1997,same interview.  "Oliver states that the Corps is sending them a letter to WI asking them to 'cease and desist' in claiming the Corps supports efforts in having prototypes tested", referring to Sanford's May 20, 1997 letter to me, over one month  later.

■       July 24, 1997, letter to me from John P. Ivey, P.E., former Director of the Texas Floodplain Management Association.  "I discussed your concept with representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers  -- while attending the Association of State Flood Plain Manager national flood conferences in San Diego in 1996 and Little Rock in 1997.  At the San Diego Conference, representatives from the Corps informed me that they had  identified a possible testing area in the Tulsa District.  The Corps has tested other floodproofing systems and technologies in the past.  I inquired again at the [April 28] 1997 Little Rock Conference and was informed by members of the Corps Flood Proofing Committee that the Corps was not going to test the floating house --- .  I have shared your literature and videos with both the Texas Flood Plain Management Association and the Association of State Flood Plain Managers and have received enthusiastic response for this new technology ---.  I understand that you have several Senators who are backing your efforts to construct a prototype but you have encountered strong opposition from FEMA and the Corps.  If any of these Senators would like to discuss these events with me please give me a call at (713)523-7161."

Please note the dates of the events listed above and decide for yourself where and when these false statements originated.

I would strongly urge you to seek the truth about this situation and carefully study the enclosed material.  Please feel free to contact Mr. Ivey, or any other knowledgeable individuals who are familiar with the Winston technology.  If you decide the statements made in the Corp's letter do not resemble the truth in any way, please so advise the Chiefs of Staff for Senators Campbell and Allard.

Thank you for your interest and assistance.  Winston feels the time has come for our elected officials to govern, not oversized bureaucracies who are expected to enforce the law, not re-write it.  If Winston had constructed new, affordable Land-locked Floating Housing for the families who were forced by FEMA to move from the floodplain area, either before or after the Fort Collins disaster, all of the homes and possessions lost in the flood would still be in tact.

Sincerely,

WINSTON INTERNATIONAL

paul k. winston                                                                                          

President