1.) 2.) Most Alaska Native Villages Are Affected to Some Extent by Flooding and Erosion

Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska  Native villages to some extent, according to studies and information  provided to us by federal and Alaska state officials. Villages on the coast are affected by flooding and erosion from the sea. While flooding and erosion has been documented in Alaska for decades,  various studies and reports indicate that coastal villages in Alaska are  becoming more susceptible. Even villages that do meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may still not  receive assistance if they cannot provide or find sufficient funding to meet  the cost-share requirements for the project. 4.) Four Villages in Imminent Danger Are Planning to Relocate, and the Remaining Five Villages Are Taking Other Actions

Four of the nine villages we reviewed are in imminent danger from  flooding and erosion and are making plans to relocate, while the remaining  five are taking other actions. Of the four villages relocating, Kivalina,  Newtok, and Shishmaref are working with relevant federal agencies to  locate suitable new sites, while Koyukuk is just beginning the planning  process for relocation. Because of the high cost of construction in remote  parts of Alaska, the cost of relocation for these villages is expected to be  high. Table  3 summarizes the status of the nine villages’ efforts to respond to their  specific flooding and erosion problems. Alternatives for Addressing Barriers That Villages Face in Obtaining Federal Services

The unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages and their inability to  qualify for assistance under a variety of federal flooding and erosion  programs may require special measures to ensure that the villages receive  certain needed services. Federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska  Native village representatives that we spoke with identified several  alternatives for Congress that could help mitigate the barriers that villages  face in obtaining federal services. These alternatives include (1) expanding the role of the Denali  Commission to include responsibilities for managing a new flooding and  erosion assistance program, (2) directing the Corps and NRCS to include  social and environmental factors in their cost/benefit analyses for projects  requested by Alaska Native villages, and (3) waiving the federal cost- sharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects for Alaska Native  villages. In addition, we identified a fourth alternative—authorizing the  bundling of funds from various agencies to address flooding and erosion  problems in these villages. They must nonetheless find ways to respond to  these problems.
Why GAO Did This Study

Approximately 6,600 miles of Alaska's coastline and many of the low-lying areas along the state's rivers are subject to severe flooding and erosion. Most of Alaska's Native villages are located on the coast or on riverbanks. In addition to the many federal and Alaska state agencies that respond to flooding and erosion, Congress established the Denali Commission in 1998 to, among other things, provide economic development services and meet infrastructure needs in rural Alaska communities. This testimony is based on GAO's report, Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance ( GAO-04-142 , December 12, 2003). Specifically, GAO identified (1) the number of Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, (2) the extent to which federal assistance has been provided to those villages, (3) the efforts of nine villages to respond to flooding and erosion, and (4) alternatives that Congress may wish to consider when providing assistance for flooding and erosion.

What GAO Found

Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska Native villages to some extent. While many of the problems are long-standing, various studies indicate that coastal villages are becoming more susceptible to flooding and erosion caused in part by rising temperatures. Small and remote Alaska Native villages have generally not received federal assistance under federal flooding and erosion programs largely because they do not meet program eligibility criteria. Even villages that do meet the eligibility criteria may still not receive assistance if they cannot meet the cost-share requirements for the project. Of the nine villages that GAO reviewed, four--Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref--are in imminent danger from flooding and erosion and are planning to relocate, while the remaining five are in various stages of responding to these problems. Costs for relocating are expected to be high. GAO, other federal and state officials, and village representatives identified alternatives that could increase service delivery for Alaska Native villages. These alternatives include (1) expanding the role of the Denali Commission; (2) directing federal agencies to consider social and environmental factors in analyzing project costs and benefits; (3) waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects; (4) authorizing the "bundling" of funds from various federal agencies. Although the Denali Commission and two federal agencies raised questions about expanding the role of the Denali Commission in commenting on GAO's report, GAO still believes it continues to be a possible alternative for helping to mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal services.