FEMA Objections to WLFH in Published News Items &Winston's Brief Rebuttals®
1. October 19, 1994, Houston Post
"We've been trying to discourage floating houses because so many things can go wrong."
Mike Robinson, FEMA Program Director.
1.® Basing a bureaucratic negation on new technology because of outmoded policies is an impractical way to govern. Nebulous comments such as Mike Robinson's statement, "we've been trying to discourage floating houses because so many things can go wrong" are sheer nonsense when supposedly trained people know nothing about their subject. It is doubtful if any FEMA director, engineer, or technician has seen anything more than a preliminary marketing presentation of the WLFH, nor have they spoken directly, seeking information, to any Winston expert.
2. January 24, 1995, Seattle Times, DISCOVERY
"Floating homes don't meet existing regulations that call for houses to either be permanently elevated or moved," James McKay, Acting Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Administration. "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."
2.® The entire scope of the new WLFH technology and the legislation directing FEMA to be accommodating to new floodproofing methods was to go beyond the existing regulations Mr. McKay mentioned. It is reprehensible to judge new technology by statements such as: "What is the threat to public safety if this doesn't work?; will these telescoping piers stay lubricated?; 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." These words were the evaluation of a FEMA senior engineer. The one thing Mr. Oliver should have known about the WLFH is it was designed, engineered, tested and thoroughly researched by practicing architects, marine, civil, and structural engineers, and two independent accredited testing agencies. In the face of this type of expertise, it is unwise for an unknowledgeable critic to voice an opinion. These Winston experts have determined this technology will work, the piers will remain tested, the stabilizing system will keep it level,and there is a pressing need to save billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and flood victim pain.
3. February 2, 1995, Wall Street Journal, Texas Journal
"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 Fairley, a hazard-mitigation officer for FEMA. Federal officials say, [in the same article], "They want eligible flood victims to know that FEMA is ready to do whatever it takes to floodproof neighborhoods in the flood plain." Todd Davison, FEMA's deputy federal coordinating officer says in the same article, "We're 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."
3.® Mr. Farley, as a public official charged with hazard mitigation, should know that people who have invested a large part of their lives, do not want to be forced out of their homes or be forced to climb up stairs when there is 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 WLFH is a way to make sure that people do not go through this trauma again, and the federal government isn't going back in five years.
4. February 12, 1995, The Orange Leader
houston (AP) - "Some homeowners inundated by last October's floods will suffer a financial washout later this year. That's because there's less than $23,000,000 in federal money to meet more than three times the amount requested. The bad news came from the Texas Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
4® The WLFH will give the taxpayers a well-needed respite from continuing flood bailouts.
5. September 9, 1995, London (England) New Scientist
"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 muck 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 state that new houses on floodplains 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.
5® 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 muck under a WLFH than under present or elevated structures because of the WLFH diverter and 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 WLFH than in the elevated houses that FEMA now considers a flood mitigating factor? Would people not be better off inside a floating home during a flood than waiting for rescue on the roof of their home in floods exceeding the 100 year flood? (which is a predictable concern.) Really, Mr. Oliver, everyone knows a weighted barge will float, Winston wants to construct a prototype to prove the WLFH technology will work successfully.
6. Oct. 31, 1995, Washington Post Editorial by Rep. Bill Emerson-R, MO & Ted Steven-R, AK:
"The .... federal government has become the nation's primary natural disaster insurer. .... 93 percent of the victims of 1993's Midwestern floods lacked flood insurance. These numbers are typical of coverage in high risk areas throughout the United States. So when disaster has come, the federal government has been expected to step in and help victims get back on their feet. Over the past five years, it has spent $500 for every taxpaying family in the nation on natural disaster assistance.
6.® Winston thanks Senator Stevens and Representative Emerson for pointing out some of the federal funding problems that the WLFH can alleviate.
7. November 29, 1995, The Wall Street Journal, Texas Journal
"It's a complicated system and vulnerable to unpredictable failure. Until a flood comes, there's no way of knowing whether it's going to work or not." Cliff Oliver, a senior engineer in Washington, DC. Bob Plott, a project manager for the Flood Plain Management Services Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commented in the same article, "The [WLFH] design could work, maybe too well, and that's another reason FEMA isn't interested." Plott adds "a floating house might encourage people to stay put during floods - a dangerous inclination that officials already have trouble overcoming. Also, a federal policy now focuses on getting people to move away from flood-prone areas or, at the very least, permanently elevating existing structures above the flood-plain level." "The floating house doesn't lend itself to FEMA's priorities." Mr. Plott says. The article continues: But if Winston eventually sways federal officials, Texas flood experts say, it could be the solution to some major problems. "For instance, it could be perfect for low-lying areas or lakeside neighborhoods where floodwaters rise gently and gradually," says John Ivey, a vice president of the engineering firm Halff Associates Inc. in Houston and regional director of the National Flood-plain Managers Association.
7.® Again Mr. Oliver shows predictable ignorance. Every mechanical invention is a complicated system, but the vast majority of new technology is tested and in use if proved effective. As stated before, Winston has developed excellent methods of "knowing if it is going to work or not." As Mr. Plott suggests, FEMA is apparently not interested because the WLFH might work too well. Maybe, as Congress directed, FEMA should change their priorities! Our thanks to Mr. Plott and Mr. Ivey for their comments.
8. March 12, 1996, San Jose Mercury News
"Flotation is based on a mechanical process, the extension of these stilts. Every mechanical process has a built-in failure rate. How can a house depending on such a process be as safe as one that doesn't?" Cliff Oliver, a senior FEMA engineer stated. Oliver further said his agency fears people living in such houses would refuse to leave them during a flood, making rescue efforts much more difficult should the design fail.
8.® Mr. Oliver continues his inane comments about built-in failures. Even a nail could have a built-in failure, which could cause a FEMA approved elevated house to have many built-in failures.
9. February, 1997, Soundings, The National Boating Magazine
FEMA has been less enthusiastic [than the Army Corps of Engineers], and Winston sees FEMA's support as critical. Without it, the homes would not be eligible for federal flood insurance. Winston has gained support from several members of Congress, who pushed legislation after the 1993 floods requiring FEMA to help companies come up with anti-flooding technology. "The floating house design would seem to be one that FEMA would want to enthusiastically cooperate in testing," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote to FEMA director James Witt earlier this year. "I gather that some at FEMA think it will not work. It was our intention that conclusions be the result of actual testing, not politically motivated speculation." Paul Winston was quoted in this article "the government and taxpayers cannot possibly afford to purchase those properties and move tens of thousands of families, nor can the government continue to subsidize reconstruction of homes and communities destroyed by floods." He says "the country has paid literally billions and billions of dollars out to flooding and we have to stop, and we think this is one of the answers."
9.® Winston is very grateful to Senator Murray and the many other legislators who have encouraged the construction of a WLFH prototype. This is all Winston asks, to be given the opportunity to prove this tested new technology.
Accolades were used in Popular Science, Professional Builder, and the Magazine of Sigma Chi in other published articles. These articles addressed the technical significance and the accomplishments of the Winston personnel - without the weak criticisms advanced by FEMA.
|