[Senate Hearing 116-601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 116-601

                         AMERICA'S WATERFRONTS:
                   ADDRESSING ECONOMIC, RECREATIONAL,
                      AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND WEATHER

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             JULY 23, 2019
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
                             
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-729 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024                   



       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND WEATHER

CORY GARDNER, Colorado, Chairman     TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin, Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY PETERS, Michigan
RICK SCOTT, Florida
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on July 23, 2019....................................     1
Statement of Senator Gardner.....................................     1
Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................     2
Statement of Senator Scott.......................................    40

                               Witnesses

Eric Genrich, Mayor of Green Bay, Wisconsin......................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Dr. Monty Graham, Associate Vice President for Research, Coastal 
  Operations, University of Southern Mississippi.................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    10
Lynn Clark, Executive Director, Harp Authority, Harp Foundation..    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Michael (Mike) J. Friis, Executive Committee Member, National 
  Working Waterfront Network; Department of Administration's 
  Wisconsin Coastal Management Program...........................    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    34

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to:
    Mayor Eric Genrich...........................................    47
    Dr. Monty Graham.............................................    47
    Michael (Mike) J. Friis......................................    48

 
                         AMERICA'S WATERFRONTS:
                   ADDRESSING ECONOMIC, RECREATIONAL,
                      AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2019

                               U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m. in 
room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Cory Gardner, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Gardner [presiding], Sullivan, Johnson, 
Scott, Baldwin, and Blumenthal.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Gardner. I would like to call this hearing to 
order.
    Thank you so much to Ranking Member Baldwin for your 
partnership on this hearing today and to the witnesses for 
appearing today.
    This hearing will focus on the current state of our working 
waterfronts, how we can balance stakeholder needs and maximize 
the benefits from our water and coastal resources. Witnesses 
will also discuss the current challenges, highlight management 
and development successes, and provide suggestions on how our 
waterfronts could be further improved, including inland 
waterfronts.
    I have to apologize that due to a floor vote on the 9/11 
First Responders legislation that I am co-leading with Senator 
Gillibrand, I will need to step away from the chair to deliver 
remarks on that bill and some other work that we are doing as 
we approach the Senate vote and some amendments. But you will 
be in good hands with Senator Baldwin, as she takes the gavel 
and takes over the hearing, obviously a wealth of knowledge on 
waterfront issues, waterfront community issues. And I will do 
my best to get back for questions. But thank you very much, 
Senator Baldwin, for that and apologies to the rest of the 
witnesses.
    I want to introduce our first witness today. I am 
especially excited to welcome a Colorado witness who comes to 
us from the Home of Heroes, Pueblo, Colorado, where she has 
played an instrumental role in rebuilding Pueblo's waterfront 
and revitalizing the special Colorado community with a history 
in steel and steel production. Ms. Lynn Clark is currently the 
Executive Director of the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of 
Pueblo, or HARP. She previously served HARP as the Director of 
Development and Public Relations and as the Assistant Director. 
Ms. Clark has led the grant-writing efforts, researching and 
writing successful government grant applications such as EDA 
and DOLA, private foundation grants and corporate gifts to 
support the planning, design, construction, and capital 
improvements for HARP. She graduated from Ramapo College of New 
Jersey with a bachelor's of science in business administration.
    Mr. Mike Friis--I think I am doing this out of order. We 
are going to go from left to right, but I am doing the 
introductions out of order. So leaving my Colorado witnesses, 
going over to Mr. Genrich, Mr. Genrich is the Mayor of Green 
Bay, Wisconsin. Let us just say we know Green Bay well in 
Colorado, dating all the way back to Super Bowl XXXII in 1998.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Gardner. Thank you very much for being here.
    Dr. Monty Graham joins us from the University of Southern 
Mississippi where he serves as Associate Vice President for 
Research of Coastal Operations.
    I just introduced Ms. Clark.
    And finally, Mr. Mike Friis is an Executive Committee 
Member at the National Working Waterfront Network.
    So we are going to go from my left to the right. Mayor 
Genrich, if you would like to begin your testimony. I am sorry. 
I apologize. I am going to turn it over to Senator Baldwin for 
her opening comments. I am sorry.

               STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Baldwin. No problem at all.
    So, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your willingness to 
hold this hearing on an issue that is of great importance to 
Wisconsin and, frankly, communities across this country, the 
resiliency and economic importance of our waterfronts.
    In Wisconsin, we are blessed with many, many waterfronts. 
We are home to 15,000 inland lakes, many rivers that connect 
them. Our two Great Lake coastlines--Lake Michigan is our east 
coast, and the south shore of Lake Superior is our north coast. 
And to our west, life in our state is also defined by our third 
coast, the mighty Mississippi River. It carries agricultural 
goods to market, brings fertilizer and other inputs up the 
river from the Gulf, and acts as one of the largest global 
migration pathways for waterfowl and provides incredible 
recreation assets to our river towns.
    These bodies have long played a critical role in the 
economy of our state. A century ago, industry built up along 
the banks of our rivers, making use of the hydropower that was 
readily available and using the rivers to move their goods to 
market. Now, many of these legacy industries have changed 
locations or technologies and many old waterfront industrial 
sites are sitting under-utilized, often blocking community 
access to the waterfront.
    For Wisconsin communities, from our small towns to our 
cities, waterfronts hold the potential for new economic 
opportunities, improved quality of life, and local 
revitalization. Across the country, each state and region has 
its own unique dynamics related to its waterfronts, from the 
challenges New England towns face to make sure that fishermen 
continue to have access to working waterfronts, to the 
challenges that drought-prone States face to conserve water 
resources while balancing economic needs with the health of 
local ecosystems.
    What ties all of these challenges together is that our 
communities, from rural towns to our largest cities, and every 
place in between, our communities are facing extreme challenges 
to their resiliency. We are seeing storm water systems that are 
overwhelmed during heavy rain events. Elsewhere, we are seeing 
stream banks that are destabilized by severe drought that is 
followed by flash floods, and these impacts come on top of 
aging infrastructure that was designed to face challenges our 
communities knew about years, in fact, decades ago. 
Increasingly these storm water systems, embankments, bridges, 
berms, and other structures are failing to meet the stresses 
that they face from severe storms sustained by rainfall and 
flooding and other localized challenges.
    There are a lot of things that need to be done to support 
the economic revitalization of our waterfront communities and 
also support their resiliency.
    I am convinced that we must start by working directly with 
local leaders and supporting them in their work to address the 
challenges of the communities they represent. And that is why I 
am particularly pleased to welcome our panel of witnesses, each 
of whom has substantial experience with the challenges facing 
their local communities and regions. I want to extend a special 
welcome to our two Wisconsinites here today: Green Bay Mayor 
Eric Genrich, for whom resiliency and revitalization issues are 
a practical and pressing reality because of the significant 
storm and flooding events this city faces; and Mike Friis, a 
national leader in coastal management who has dedicated his 
career to supporting local communities to manage their 
coastlines and make the most of their waterfronts. Wisconsin is 
fortunate to have each of these leaders focused on the many 
challenges and opportunities that waterfront resiliency and 
revitalization pose.
    In support of their work and in the face of the many 
challenges that waterfront communities confront across the 
country, I am preparing to reintroduce my Waterfront Community 
Revitalization and Resiliency Act. This bill has previously 
passed the Commerce Committee and passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent. And, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that we can 
work together to update this legislation following the input 
from our witnesses today so that communities can have access to 
the technical assistance and funding they need to address the 
substantial challenges that they face in improving their 
resiliency and ensuring that coastal and waterfront towns 
continue to be wonderful places to live, do business, and 
recreate.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
    Mayor Genrich.

                  STATEMENT OF ERIC GENRICH, 
                 MAYOR OF GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN

    Mr. Genrich. Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, 
thank you so much for inviting me here today to testify before 
your subcommittee. Being in the first 100 days of my 
administration as the 42nd Mayor of Green Bay, I still have a 
lot to learn, but one thing I know for sure is that we are 
incredibly lucky to live on the Great Lakes, the largest source 
of fresh water in the world.
    Like many waterfront communities, we are rediscovering the 
recreational and environmental value of our waterways. Ten 
years ago, city leaders determined to bring life back to the 
Fox River with the construction of our CityDeck in downtown 
Green Bay. The city is also nearing the completion of a 
multiyear effort to restore a swimming beach at Bay Beach 
Amusement Park, which has been closed to swimmers for nearly 80 
years. Finally, I have been working closely with our county's 
administration and harbor commission to develop a plan to 
relocate coal piles from our waterfront in downtown Green Bay 
to the site of a decommissioned coal-fired power plant. We hope 
to make room for multiple public and private uses of varying 
types in this location while constructing a 21st century 
commercial port at the mouth of the bay on the site of the 
former power plant.
    Like many waterfront communities, we have recognized and 
made strides to rectify our historically dysfunctional 
relationship with our greatest natural resource. We are 
actively seeking to develop our waterfronts in environmentally 
appropriate and economically productive ways. Significant 
challenges remain, however. Lake Michigan and the Bay of Green 
Bay are plagued with invasive species. There is a dead zone in 
the bay that is a result of something phosphorous runoff and is 
threatening one of the greatest fisheries in the world, and our 
waterfront areas have suffered from coastal erosion and from 
flooding.
    With regard to flooding 13 percent of the city's parcels 
are located within the boundaries of our 100-year floodplain. 
This spring, our East River topped its banks and flooded scores 
of residents in the floodplain on the east and west sides of 
the East River, and late last summer, an extreme rain event 
caused significant flooding on our city's east side. Just this 
past weekend, we experienced more flooding in low-lying areas 
of Green Bay caused by torrential downpours.
    Great Lakes levels remain historically high in most lakes, 
and Lakes Michigan and Huron were just 1 inch shy of our June 
record. These high water levels have caused us to lift and fix 
our docks at the metro boat launch and led to the cancellation 
of our full marathon this spring because of flooding on our Fox 
River Trail. In the context of what other communities have 
faced, our problems might seem small, but it is clear that they 
are not going away. If it is not high water levels, it will be 
extreme weather events that impact cities like Green Bay all 
across the country. Heavy rainfall, in particular, has been a 
major problem for Wisconsin communities in recent times. On 
August 28, 2018, we experienced 2.6 inches of rain in just two 
and a half hours, with 6 and a half inches of rain falling in 
some parts of Green Bay in a 24-hour period.
    To recap our recent history, we have experienced multiple 
localized flooding events and a sizable riverine flooding event 
in the past year, and we have no reason to expect these events 
to become less likely. President Trump's Environmental 
Protection Agency tells us the opposite, in fact. From the EPA 
website, quote, heavy downpours have increased in frequency and 
intensity worldwide in the last 50 years. They are expected to 
become more frequent and intense as global temperatures 
continue to rise. As a result, the risk of flooding is likely 
to increase dramatically across the United States. The average 
100-year floodplain is projected to increase 45 percent by the 
year 2100.
    Green Bay is a coastal community and it is an old city. So 
as a result, there are many areas that are low-lying and were 
once wetlands. Over the years, springs and swamps have been 
filled and creeks have been forced underground. During periods 
of high water or significant rain events, nature finds a way 
into the homes and businesses of area residents. This is 
detrimental to the lives and livelihoods of our citizens, and 
it is costly for taxpayers. And we as elected officials must be 
committed to finding a long-term solution to this national and 
global problem that empowers local communities to act.
    Since being elected in April, I have convened two meetings 
of significance on this topic: one with affected area residents 
and one with flood management experts. We are also engaged in 
the process of applying for a grant to perform an audit of the 
city's codes and ordinances to make sure it is conducive to the 
development of necessary green infrastructure elements. And we 
are reviewing our county's FEMA-required hazard mitigation plan 
to ensure it recognizes and prioritizes all available 
strategies for flood mitigation.
    Moving forward, we will be thoroughly assessing our flood 
risks, evaluating traditional and green infrastructure options, 
constructing physical solutions, and potentially relocating 
residents from vulnerable areas. And when I say ``we,'' I mean 
the City of Green Bay, our government, and our residents, but I 
hope it soon means all the governments and residents of the 
lower Fox and lower East River watersheds. Water, like other 
things, rolls downhill, and we are at the bottom. Although we 
are the largest municipality in the region, we do not have the 
resources or the tools to solve these issues on our own. 
Floodwaters do not care about municipal boundaries and neither 
can we.
    So what am I asking of you? Help, of course. Money, 
undoubtedly. But more than specific requests, I asking for you 
to muster the political will to do what is called for in 
response to an obvious and growing threat to communities all 
across this country.
    Just last week, our Nation celebrated the 50th anniversary 
of our Moon landing. I am not the first and I know I will not 
be the last to urge you to recapture the political imagination 
that allowed us to think big and act boldly at that time. And I 
am begging you to take that charge seriously. Temperatures and 
water levels are rising, and our weather is becoming 
identifiably more extreme. Whatever the cause, we have no 
alternative but to commit ourselves to investing in 
infrastructure and enacting the policies to build resilient 
communities across this country.
    Green Bay is an exceptional city in a great state in an 
indispensable nation. And with apologies to Senator Cruz, who 
is a member of this Committee, we are home to America's team. 
Green Bay is by far the smallest NFL city and the only one with 
a franchise that is community-owned. We are the little 
community that could in the past and that will into the future. 
My bosses, Green Bay's citizens, know that we are capable of 
great things as a city, and they are ready to meet the 
challenges we face head on. So please lead. Lead us boldly. 
Lead us optimistically. Lead us scientifically. And we will 
follow.
    So thanks so much for having me here today, Chairman 
Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin. I am happy to answer 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Genrich follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Eric Genrich, Mayor of Green Bay, Wisconsin
    Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and Members: thank you so 
much for inviting me here today to testify before your subcommittee. 
Being in the first 100 days of my administration as the 42nd mayor of 
Green Bay, WI, I still have a lot to learn, but one thing I know for 
sure: we are incredibly lucky to live on the Great Lakes, the largest 
source of freshwater in the world. We are situated at the confluence of 
the Fox River, its major tributary, the East River, and the bay of 
Green Bay. Our drinking water comes from off the western shore of Lake 
Michigan, and many of our historic industries related to logistics, 
bulk commodities, and paper-making would not exist if not for our 
waterways. Finally, and importantly, the Menominee people have called 
Wisconsin and the Bay Area home for thousands of years and have relied 
on coastal wild rice beds, which are currently being restored because 
of their environmental and cultural value. In short, we are grateful to 
be a coastal community. We are proud of our heritage and we are hopeful 
for our future.
    Like many waterfront communities, we are rediscovering the 
recreational and environmental value of our waterways. Ten years ago, 
city leaders determined to bring life back to the Fox River with the 
construction of our CityDeck in downtown Green Bay. Now, it's hard to 
imagine what our downtown would look like without this vibrant public 
space in the heart of our community. The city is also nearing the 
completion of a multi-year effort to restore a swimming beach at Bay 
Beach Amusement Park, which has been closed to swimmers for nearly 
eighty years. Based on the analysis of Wisconsin's Department of 
Natural Resources, water quality at our beach will be in line with what 
is observed at other Great Lakes beaches in the state, but it's also 
true that we will have to close it periodically because of green-blue 
algal blooms. Finally, I have been working closely with our county's 
administration and harbor commission to develop a plan to relocate coal 
piles from our waterfront in downtown Green Bay to the site of a 
decommissioned coal-fired power plant. We hope to make room for 
multiple public and private uses of varying types in this location, 
while constructing a 21st century commercial port at the mouth of the 
bay on the site of the former power plant.
    That is all to say that we, like many waterfront communities, have 
recognized and made strides to rectify our historically dysfunctional 
relationship with our greatest natural resource. We are actively 
seeking to develop our waterfronts in environmentally appropriate and 
economically productive ways. Significant challenges remain, however. 
Lake Michigan and the Bay of Green Bay are plagued with invasive 
species; there is a dead zone in the bay that is the result of 
significant phosphorus runoff and is threatening one of the greatest 
fisheries in the world; and our waterfront areas have suffered from 
coastal erosion and flooding.
    With regard to flooding, 13 percent of the city's parcel's are 
located within the boundaries of our 100-year floodplain. This spring 
our East River topped its banks and flooded scores of residents in the 
floodplain on the east and west sides of the East River. Late last 
summer an extreme rain event caused significant flooding on our city's 
east side. And just this past weekend we experienced more flooding in 
low-lying areas of Green Bay caused by torrential downpours.
    Great Lakes levels remain historically high in the case of most 
lakes, and Lakes Michigan and Huron were just one inch shy of the June 
record. These high water levels have caused us to lift and fix our 
docks at the metro boat launch and led to the cancellation of our full 
marathon this spring because of flooding on our Fox River Trail. In the 
context of what other communities have faced, our problems might seem 
small, but it is clear that they are not going away. If it's not high 
water levels, it will be extreme weather events that impact cities like 
Green Bay all across the country. Heavy rainfall, in particular, has 
been a major problem for Wisconsin communities in recent times, and 
according to the research of Dr. David Liebl of UW-Madison, the number 
of rainfalls producing more than 5'' of rain almost doubled in 
frequency between the years 2001-2014 compared to 1950-1975, occurring 
3.1 times per year during the more recent period. On August 28, 2018, 
we experienced 2.6'' of rain in just two and a half hours with 6.5'' of 
rain falling in some parts of Green Bay in a twenty-four hour 
period.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Bachhuber, Jim. 2018. ``Managing the (not so) rare 
rainstorms''. The Municipality. 113 (12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To recap our recent history, we have experienced multiple localized 
flooding events and a sizable riverine flooding event in the past year, 
and we have no reason to expect these events to become less likely. 
President Trump's Environmental Protection Agency tells us the 
opposite, in fact. From the EPA website:

        Heavy downpours have increased in frequency and intensity 
        worldwide in the last 50 years. They are expected to become 
        more frequent and intense as global temperatures continue to 
        rise. As a result, the risk of flooding is likely to increase 
        dramatically across the United States. The average 100-year 
        floodplain is projected to increase 45 percent by the year 
        2100. . .\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Green Infrastructure: Manage Flood Risk''. EPA.gov. https://
www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/manage-floodrisk. (Accessed July 16, 
2019).

    Looking back a bit further, our two largest floods in the last 
fifty years occurred in 1973 and 1990. On April 9, 1973 the City of 
Green Bay experienced a 500-year event when extremely high lake levels 
and winds out of the northeast caused massive flooding throughout much 
of the city with 4 feet of water in our downtown and millions of 
dollars in property damage.\3\ A June 1990 flood also caused over $11 
million dollars in damages to area properties, having impacted over 200 
homes and businesses when the East River topped its banks because of a 
4.9 inch rain event.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``Nor'Easter Coastal Storm Flooding on Green Bay''. 
GreatLakesResilience.org. http://greatlakesresilience.org/stories/
wisconsin/nor%E2%80%99easter-coastal-storm-flooding-green-bay-0 
(Accessed July 16, 2019).
    \4\ Liebl, David S. ``Mitigating Flood Risk in the East River''. 
WisconsinAcademy.org. https://www.wisconsinacademy.org/blog/waters-
wisconsin/mitigating-flood-risk-east-river (Accessed July 16, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Green Bay is a coastal community, and it is an old city. As a 
result, there are many areas that are low-lying and were once wetlands. 
Over the years, springs and swamps have been filled and creeks have 
been forced underground. During periods of high water or significant 
rain events, nature finds a way into the homes and businesses of area 
residents. This is detrimental to the lives and livelihoods of our 
citizens, and it is costly for taxpayers, and we as elected officials 
must be committed to finding a long-term solution to this national and 
global problem that empowers local communities to act. Since being 
elected in April I have convened two meetings of significance on this 
topic: one with affected area residents and one with flood management 
experts. We are also engaged in the process of applying for a grant to 
perform an audit of the city's codes and ordinances to make sure it is 
conducive to the development of necessary green infrastructure 
elements. And we are reviewing our county's FEMA-required Hazard 
Mitigation Plan to ensure it recognizes and prioritizes all available 
strategies for flood mitigation.
    Moving forward, we will be thoroughly assessing our flood risks, 
evaluating traditional and green infrastructure options, constructing 
physical solutions, and potentially relocating residents from 
vulnerable areas. And when I say ``we'' I mean the City of Green Bay, 
our government and our residents, but I hope it soon means all the 
governments and residents of the lower Fox and lower East River 
watersheds. Water, like other things, rolls downhill, and we are at the 
bottom. Although we are the largest municipality in the region, we 
don't have the resources or the tools to solve these issues on our own. 
Floodwaters don't care about municipal boundaries, and neither can we. 
As Julia Noordyk from the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant has stated, 
``Our outdated and aging infrastructure was not designed for the 
quantity of runoff that our city is now experiencing due to more 
frequent and intense storm events and loss of water storage capacity in 
the upper reaches of the watershed. A large-scale regional approach is 
needed if we are to address these issues.''
    So what am I asking of you? Help, of course. Money, undoubtedly. 
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been incredibly successful 
and popular. I ask for your continued support of this program. The 
identified GLRI goals of making Great Lakes water safe for recreation, 
delisting all Areas of Concern, and eliminating nuisance algal blooms 
all overlap with our needs and the needs of many coastal communities. 
In addition, the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, the Army 
Corps of Engineers Silver Jackets, and the NOAA Coastal Resilience 
Grant Program are all relevant to our needs. We ask that you continue 
to support these initiatives.
    More than those requests, though, I am asking for you to muster the 
political will to do what is called for in response to an obvious and 
growing threat to communities all across this country. Just last week 
our Nation celebrated the 50th anniversary of our moon-landing. I am 
not the first, and I won't be the last, to urge you to recapture the 
political imagination that allowed us to think big and act boldly at 
that time, and I am begging you to take that charge seriously. 
Temperatures and water levels are rising and our weather is becoming 
identifiably more extreme. Whatever the cause, we have no alternative 
but to commit ourselves to investing in the infrastructure and enacting 
the policies to build resilient communities across this country.
    Green Bay is an exceptional city, in a great state, in an 
indispensable nation. With apologies to Senator Cruz, we are home to 
America's Team. Green Bay is by far the smallest NFL city and the only 
one with a franchise that is community-owned. We are the little 
community ``that could'' in the past and ``that will'' into the future. 
My bosses, Green Bay's citizens, know that we are capable of great 
things as a city, and they are ready to meet the challenges we face 
head-on. So please lead. Lead us boldly, lead us optimistically, lead 
us scientifically. We will follow.
    Thank you again Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and 
members. It is a true privilege to be with you today. I am happy to 
answer questions.

    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Genrich.
    Dr. Graham, do you want to proceed?

         STATEMENT OF DR. MONTY GRAHAM, ASSOCIATE VICE

          PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, COASTAL OPERATIONS,

               UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI

    Dr. Graham. Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and 
esteemed subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify on behalf of the University of Southern Mississippi and 
the Mississippi coastal region. I have to say Southern Miss 
because we have a strong connection with our Green Bay partners 
in the form of Brett Farve.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Graham. I appreciate your interest in addressing 
economic, recreational, and environmental challenges associated 
with working waterfronts. This is excellent timing as the State 
of Mississippi is currently working to strengthen its coastal 
communities and waterfronts to create a resilience-based 
economy, and I believe that our efforts can be supported and 
strengthened by Federal legislation.
    Mississippi's working coast has a rich history tied to the 
sea. It is our blue economy. Harvests for shrimp, oysters, 
numerous species of fish abound from what has been coined the 
``Fisheries Fertile Crescent'' because of the nutrient-rich 
waters fed by many rivers. Our warm winter climate has been 
bringing tourists to the coast for more than 100 years. Visit 
us in February, you might see as many Wisconsin license plates 
as you do Mississippi license plates. And shipbuilding 
continues to rule the manufacturing in Mississippi with a 
history predating the founding of our United States. World War 
II was fought and won with Mississippi-built ships, and that 
carries today as nearly 70 percent of the surface warfighting 
ships of the U.S. Navy are built in Mississippi.
    Resiliency is baked into the DNA of our coastal communities 
in Mississippi following a generation of natural and human-
related engineering disasters. There now exists an entire 
generation of young people entering the workforce who 
experienced at least one disaster in the Gulf of Mexico every 5 
years: Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and two 
significant openings of the Bonnet Carre Spillway. The ongoing 
opening of the spillway has flooded the entire Mississippi 
coast with freshwater from the Mississippi River leading to 
high mortality of oysters, shrimp, fish, dolphins, and sea 
turtles and is now generating an economically crippling harmful 
algal bloom expected to persist through the remainder of this 
summer.
    Recovery and restoration funds, much of them federal, came 
and they need to come again to help our Gulf communities 
overcome current losses. But I fear there is an expectation 
that disasters are needed to keep our economy moving. This is 
what you would call a disaster-based economy.
    Mississippi is at the critical point of making large 
decisions that move the coastal working waterfront away from a 
disaster-based economy to a resilience-based economy through 
workforce and economic diversification.
    In Mississippi, under the leadership of Governor Phil 
Bryant, working with the University of Southern Mississippi, we 
are building a new blue economy to diversify our traditional 
economy founded on shipbuilding, fishing, and tourism. This 
economy will build on new and emerging technology fields around 
unmanned maritime systems. It creates opportunities for high-
paying jobs in science, technology, engineering, and math, such 
as robotics engineering and machine learning computer skills. 
It provides new opportunities for Mississippi's best and 
brightest students to stay on the coast. In short, it builds 
resilience.
    This committee has played a significant and important role 
in Mississippi's new blue economy in the passage of the 
Commercial Engagement Through Ocean Technology Act of 2018. On 
behalf of Mississippi, I thank you for that work, and I look 
forward to similar legislation such as the forthcoming 
Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture 
Act to have comparable incentives for economic development 
around aquaculture to build a resilient economy in coastal 
Mississippi.
    Other Federal efforts such as the Waterfront Community 
Revitalization and Resiliency Act can aid our communities in 
reaching much needed resiliency, but from lessons learned from 
the Mississippi coast, I recommend the committee consider the 
regional approaches to resilience planning.
    In Mississippi, Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater Horizon, and 
current flooding from the Mississippi River spread impacts 
across multiple government boundaries. Disasters do not strike 
cities. They strike regions. The National Academies recently 
published a report, Measuring Community Resilience: Actions for 
Communities and the Gulf Research Program. Of interest to you, 
Chairman Gardner, is that one of the case studies of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology's Community 
Resilience Planning Guide was in Boulder County, three cities 
and four towns. And I think that is a prime example of 
resiliency planning.
    I highlight a few examples of existing regional and 
national coordinating bodies engaged in resiliency. The first 
is Consortium for Ocean Leadership based here in the Nation's 
capital, represents leading ocean science, research, and 
technology, organization, and stands ready to facilitate 
resiliency planning.
    The second is the excellent work of our State Sea Grant 
programs that include the Great Lakes regions.
    And third, specific to us, is the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, 
a network of five Gulf States. GOMA is authorized currently by 
each of the governors, and hopefully it will be authorized by 
Congress under the recently introduced Regional Ocean 
Partnership Act.
    In closing, resiliency planning in advance of a major 
disaster is the key to quicker recovery, but we should measure 
the success of true resiliency not based on bouncing back but 
bouncing forward.
    Thank you, Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and 
the rest of the subcommittee for your efforts today. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Graham follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Dr. Monty Graham, Associate Vice President for 
  Research, Coastal Operations, The University of Southern Mississippi
    Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and esteemed subcommittee 
members, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of The 
University of Southern Mississippi and Mississippi coastal region. I 
appreciate your interest in addressing the economic, recreational, and 
environmental challenges associated with working waterfronts. This is 
fortuitous timing, as the state of Mississippi is currently working to 
strengthen its coastal communities and waterfronts to create a 
resilience-based economy, and I believe that these efforts can be 
supported and strengthened by Federal activities. I appreciate Ranking 
Member Baldwin's work to support waterfront community revitalization 
and resiliency through the Waterfront Community Revitalization and 
Resiliency Act and have some ideas to expand upon and strengthen last 
Congress' already solid piece of legislation.
    There are three takeaways from my testimony today:

  1.  Resiliency is baked into the DNA of coastal communities in 
        Mississippi following a generation of natural and human-related 
        engineering disasters;

  2.  Mississippi is at the critical point of making large decisions 
        that will move the coastal working waterfront away from a 
        disaster-based economy to a resilience-based economy through 
        workforce and economic diversification;

  3.  Federal efforts, such as the Waterfront Community Revitalization 
        and Resiliency Act, can aid our communities in reaching this 
        much-needed resiliency, but from lessons learned along the 
        Mississippi coast, I recommend the Committee consider the role 
        of regional approaches to resiliency planning.
Mississippi's Economy
    As you know, Mississippi's working coast has a rich history tied to 
the sea. Harvests for shrimp, oysters, and numerous species of fish 
abound from what has been coined the ``Fisheries Fertile Crescent'' 
around the nutrient-rich waters fed by many rivers. The warmer winter 
climate has been bringing tourists to the coast for more than 100 
years. Visit us in February, and you might see as many Wisconsin as 
Mississippi license plates. And shipbuilding continues to rule 
manufacturing in Mississippi with a history pre-dating the 
establishment of the United States. World War II was fought and won 
with Mississippi-built ships, and that carries today as nearly 70 
percent of the surface warfighting ships of the U.S. Navy are built in 
Mississippi. And our warm Mississippi waters are connected to the 
Arctic, as the next generation of heavy icebreakers for the United 
States Coast Guard are now under construction in Mississippi. 
Huntington Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula remains the state's largest 
single-location employer, creating 12,500 jobs.
    We are extremely proud of Mississippi's rich history and 
contributions to our Nation in shipbuilding, fishing, and tourism. 
These key sectors have the most direct contact to the Gulf of Mexico 
and form the basis for what is Mississippi's maritime blue economy.
    But, the Gulf of Mexico, as richly as it provides opportunity, also 
carries tremendous risks. There exists now an entire generation of 
young people entering the workforce who have experienced at least one 
significant disaster in their Gulf of Mexico at least every five years: 
Hurricane Katrina, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and two significant 
openings of the Bonnet Carre Spillway (which have flooded the entire 
Mississippi coast with freshwater from the Mississippi River leading to 
significant mortality of fisheries, dolphins and sea turtles, and now 
generating an economically crippling harmful algal bloom expected to 
persist through the remainder of this summer). I point out these 
disasters as specific examples because they reflect major impacts to 
communities though damage to infrastructure, human health and well-
being, as well as job loss.
    The recovery and restoration funds, most of them federal, came. 
Physical recovery can be slow, but it does occur. I would say that for 
any single disaster, no matter how large, Mississippians exhibit 
incredible resiliency. But in the eyes of the youngest working 
generation, they must feel like they are in a boxing match with their 
hands tied. Mind you, these disaster-recovery cycles are still 
happening on top of all the other crises we face as a nation, such as 
housing market collapses, recessions, and the opioid epidemic. The 
expectation for them must be that some disaster is coming every five 
years, then that will be followed by recovery funding. This is what you 
would call a disaster-based economy.
    The goal now for Mississippi is to move from that disaster-based 
economy to a resilience-based economy. This is where the Committee's 
work through the working waterfronts legislation will have substantial 
influence on that transition.
    Resiliency planning in advance of a major disaster is the key to 
quick and successful recovery. But we should measure success on the 
true definition of resiliency, which is not to simply bounce back but 
to bounce forward. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Deepwater 
Horizon in 2010, Mississippi has received billions of dollars in 
recovery and settlement funds with an eye on bouncing forward. Much of 
these monies have been spent on needed re-engineering of our coastlines 
and infrastructure.
    But coastal engineering is not the only, or sometimes even the 
best, answer. We need to reform our blue economy to be more resilient. 
Taking a page from my freshman Introduction to Ecology textbook, the 
healthiest ecosystems are both productive and diverse. Productivity and 
biodiversity buffer an ecosystem against damage. Similarly, productive 
and diverse economies are also inherently buffered against major 
disruption related to disaster.
    In Mississippi, we are building a new blue economy to diversify our 
traditional economy founded on shipbuilding, fishing, and tourism. This 
economy will build on new emerging technology fields around unmanned 
maritime systems. It creates opportunities for high-paying science, 
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) jobs, such as robotics 
engineering and machine-learning computer skills. It provides new 
opportunities for Mississippi's best and brightest students to stay on 
the coast. In effect, it builds a new and more resilient ecosystem.
Using the Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act to 
        Create a Resilience-based Economy
    To Governor Phil Bryant's great credit, this new blue economy was 
not reactionary to a crisis. Rather, it was born from a deliberate plan 
created by his Ocean Task Force to create a strategic roadmap for new 
economic opportunities in maritime technology. Governor Bryant knew 
economic growth on the coast had to be oriented to the maritime economy 
and that it had to add to coastal economic resiliency. This Committee 
has played a significant and important role in Mississippi's new blue 
economy with the passage of the Commercial Engagement through Ocean 
Technology (CENOTE) Act of 2018. On behalf of Mississippi, I thank you 
for that work. I look forward to similar legislation, such as the 
forthcoming Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American 
Aquaculture (AQUAA) Act, to have comparable incentives for economic 
development around aquaculture to continue building a resilient economy 
in coastal Mississippi.
    The Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act can help 
support Mississippi's ongoing efforts to ensure resiliency in a number 
of ways. I'm particularly interested in components of the resiliency 
plan that aid in efforts to further diversify our economy and that 
address ecosystem challenges, such as the natural and human engineering 
disasters I described above.
    I appreciate the proactive approach of this bill. Currently, 
disaster funding is reactive in the sense that we implement resiliency 
measures after the fact using disaster recovery funding. While disaster 
recovery aid is badly needed and necessary for recovery, if we're not 
taking steps to make our communities more resilient in the first place, 
we're always playing catchup after a disaster strikes, and our future 
resiliency will only be incremental at best. Encouraging and supporting 
communities' efforts to develop forward-looking plans for resiliency 
will strengthen them and will ultimately reduce the amount of Federal 
spending on disaster recovery.
A Regional Approach to Resiliency Planning
    The legislation is strong, it's proactive and it will no doubt 
carry cost-savings to the taxpayer in the long run. I would, however, 
encourage you to consider taking a regional approach to resiliency 
planning. The previous bill targeted units of government for 
eligibility. However, in Mississippi, Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater 
Horizon, and the current flooding from the Mississippi River spread 
impacts across multiple governmental boundaries. Disasters don't strike 
cities, they strike regions. The National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering, and Medicine recently published their report, Building and 
Measuring Community Resilience: Actions for Communities and the Gulf 
Research Program. One of the case studies they examine is 
implementation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's 
Community Resilience Planning Guide in Boulder County to direct Federal 
recovery funding. This cooperative group included Boulder County, as 
well as four cities and three towns within the county. This is a prime 
example of regional resiliency planning. Additionally, one of the 
report's recommendations is developing a ``major, coordinated 
initiative'' around community resilience, which includes involving 
several communities and fostering interactions across and among them. 
The National Academies' Gulf Research Program made this recommendation 
for Gulf resiliency, and this legislation would authorize support for 
such an approach.
    In Mississippi, we adopt a brand for our 80-mile waterfront as 
``One Coast'' because the municipal jurisdictions across the ten 
coastal cities are not apparent to the visitor. ``One Coast'' reflects 
the common goals and interests of coastal Mississippi. Where the Gulf 
Coast Regional Planning Commission adopts transportation planning goals 
for the ``One Coast,'' I believe resiliency planning would be best 
served if incentivized at the regional level as well.
    I would go even further to encourage resilience planning across the 
entire Gulf region using the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA), a network 
of the five Gulf states. GOMA is authorized currently by each of the 
governors. Hopefully it will be authorized by Congress under the 
recently introduced Regional Ocean Partnership Act. Thank you, Chairman 
Wicker, for your leadership on this topic.
    When needed at the national level, our Consortium for Ocean 
Leadership, a nonprofit based here in the Nation's capital that 
represents the leading ocean science, research, and technology 
organizations, stands ready to facilitate resiliency planning to the 
benefit of overall ocean security. And, I would acknowledge the vital 
importance of coastal and Great Lakes Sea Grant Programs in forging 
regional and national resiliency planning as well.
    Finally, anytime we talk about resiliency of a maritime economy, we 
must acknowledge the importance of healthy and productive oceans, 
lakes, and waterways. An overfished Gulf choked by plastics and harmful 
algal blooms does not benefit the Nation. In fact, it increases our 
national vulnerability. As we move forward, we must ensure good 
management decisions are supported by the best science. I leave you 
with this vision from Admiral James Watkins,

        ``Our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are clean, safe, 
        prospering, and sustainably managed. They contribute 
        significantly to the economy, supporting multiple, beneficial 
        uses such as food production, development of energy and mineral 
        resources, recreation and tourism, transportation of goods and 
        people, and the discovery of novel medicines, while preserving 
        a high level of biodiversity and a wide range of critical 
        natural habitats.''

    Thank you, Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and the rest 
of the subcommittee members for your efforts to achieve this vision and 
for having me here to testify today.

    Senator Baldwin [presiding]. Ms. Clark.

 STATEMENT OF LYNN CLARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HARP AUTHORITY, 
                        HARP FOUNDATION

    Ms. Clark. Thank you to the committee for offering this 
opportunity to Pueblo, Colorado to speak today.
    The Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo, HARP, or simply 
the Riverwalk is a story of resilience and resolve. From its 
earliest days, Pueblo has benefited from its proximity to the 
Arkansas River. This was one of the many reasons that a steel 
mill established itself here in the 1880s. The mill was so 
significant, it became the primary employer in Pueblo, 
effectively establishing a single industry town.
    In the early 1980s, recession hit. The steel mill which had 
previously employed over 5,600 people experienced massive 
layoffs, and unemployment was at 20 percent.
    It was at this time that the City of Pueblo approached the 
EDA and was granted funding to have an economic dislocation 
study done, which resulted in a strategy for economic 
diversification, beautification projects, and rebranding of 
Pueblo as a recreation and tourism destination. This study was 
a turning point for Pueblo and commenced a massive urban 
revitalization effort.
    Cities in crisis tend to take risks, and Pueblo was 
suffering greatly. A coalition of concerned citizens came 
together to change the direction of Pueblo's future. As part of 
the plan, the decision was made to bring the Arkansas' path 
back through downtown and use it as a focal point for 
redevelopment of the city.
    It was not a simple journey because it would require 
convincing the citizens of Pueblo to pay for this considerable 
investment. Many public meetings and many one-on-one 
conversations led to the approval of a $12.8 million bond issue 
in 1995.
    Construction of the Riverwalk was such a tremendous 
undertaking that the strategy was to build it in phases, 
seeking funding for each phase as we went along. Funding 
sources have included Federal programs such as the EDA, the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and TIGER, 
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery. Many 
State programs have contributed, and we have major gifts from 
local foundations, as well as private citizens.
    Development has also included Veterans Bridge, horticulture 
projects, sculptures, murals, and fountains, as well as an 
educational area devoted to Zebulon Pike and his expeditions in 
the region. Our current phase, which is nearing completion, 
serves as an inviting link to the newly expanded convention 
center.
    Pueblo has seen a shift in business development, 
transitioning from being almost exclusively a steel town to 
more diverse manufacturing and office jobs. Recently, $8.7 
million in funding was secured through a ballot issue approved 
by Pueblo County residents for design and construction of a 
boathouse and the eastward extension of the Riverwalk channel. 
Local visitors bureau data tells us that since the Riverwalk 
has been created, we have increased visits from Colorado 
residents and surrounding States. This, as a result, has 
brought in and supported new businesses such as restaurants, 
hotels, and retail shops.
    Property tax data indicates this area has higher property 
values and boasts some of the most valuable real estate in 
Pueblo County.
    This project has created a new level of quality of life for 
residents. This is where they bring their friends and family.
    Our hospitals and our other large employers use this area 
as a recruitment tool to attract new employees and their 
families.
    We generate business activity for downtown Pueblo by 
marketing public and private events. For example, live music in 
a farmers market on a Thursday night raises the business level 
by 60 percent in the restaurants.
    The beauty and activity of today's Riverwalk is a stark 
contrast to the downtown area that previously consisted of 
parking lots, storm water runoff ditches, and utility cooling 
ponds.
    This is our community's front door, and it has all of the 
curb appeal we envisioned to bring more business to that door. 
It is the jewel and centerpiece for Pueblo's downtown 
revitalization efforts and is known as Pueblo's Happy Place.
    Any undertaking of this magnitude requires the buy-in from 
local constituents and governmental support. In the midst of a 
recession and considerable devastation, Pueblo was able to 
redefine itself as a beautiful place to live, to visit. It 
became a viable downtown in which to locate diverse business 
and create community activity.
    The impact and benefit of having an urban waterfront 
attractions are in some ways immeasurable. But looking back at 
where Pueblo was headed in the 1980s and where it is going 
today clearly illustrate that the Riverwalk is a crucial 
component of Pueblo's future and a priceless undertaking.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Clark follows:]

                 HISTORIC ARKANSAS RIVERWALK OF PUEBLO
A Story of Revitalization and Resiliency
1. Organization Background
    The Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo (HARP or Riverwalk) is an 
urban waterfront located in the center of Pueblo, Colorado's downtown 
that includes three unique environments: a lake, a navigable manmade 
channel, and a natural area with a stream. The Riverwalk is publicly 
owned, free of charge, accessible 24 hours each day and provides 
cultural, educational, economic, recreational, and social opportunities 
and experiences to a broad spectrum of the population within our 
region. It further serves the City of Pueblo by revitalizing an 
underdeveloped area in the urban core of the City. This urban 
redevelopment transformed the community and showcases the resolve of 
the citizens to diversify our local economic base.
    The Riverwalk master plan calls for phasing of construction, each 
phase is completed as funding becomes available. Phases I & II of the 
Riverwalk were transformational, revitalizing the urban landscape of 
downtown Pueblo. The masterplan also called for building sites that can 
be sold to private developers. Several years after the completion of 
the initial phases real estate development began. The first development 
projects were residential townhomes, the Professional Bull Riders World 
Headquarters, the AT&T Service Center and Angelo's Pizza. The Ecowalk 
Building is home to several office suites, an exercise studio, 
investment professionals, law offices and 1129 Spirits & Eatery. The 
historic Waterfront Building has been completely renovated and is home 
to the Center for American Values featuring a photographic gallery of 
the Medal of Honor recipients, the Media Center, and Twenty One Steak. 
The Bella Santi Building holds a variety of businesses, Table 67 a 
casual dining eatery, and there are upscale residential units on the 
upper floors. Brue's Alehouse, The Clink Lounge and The Station (a 
boutique hotel) are in the remodeled former Police Department building. 
We are waiting for construction to begin on the new Hilton Garden hotel 
to be located directly on the channel. Our Riverwalk Welcome Center 
houses the Riverwalk Boat and Entertainment Operations. The Riverwalk 
currently has building sites available within the current footprint of 
the venue.
    Pueblo's Riverwalk is a story of resiliency and resolve. Two of the 
City's strengths are its abundant supply of water and its proximity to 
the Arkansas River and Fountain Creek. The Arkansas River drew the 
steel mill to the area in the late 1800s, the mill became the largest 
manufacturer and the primary source of employment for Pueblo. 
Accessibility to the railroad system and other natural resources in the 
area continued to make Pueblo attractive to additional manufacturing 
companies and this resulted in a narrow employment base. The early 
1980s brought a time of recession in the western states oil industry 
which affected the demand for seamless tube production, a product of 
the steel mill in Pueblo. In 1981, employment at the CF&I steel mill 
was approximately 5,500, this number declined to about 1,600. By 1982, 
Pueblo's unemployment approached 20 percent and some wondered if Pueblo 
would become a ghost town.
    The City of Pueblo realized they needed economic assistance and 
contacted the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The EDA funded 
an Economic Dislocation Study that resulted in a strategy for 
redevelopment, which included economic diversification, beautification 
projects, and rebranding Pueblo as a recreation and tourism 
destination. The study was a turning point for the City of Pueblo and 
commenced a massive urban revitalization effort.
    The grand vision for the Riverwalk began in 1991 when a coalition 
of interested citizens came together and conceived the creation of a 
river walk through downtown Pueblo, Colorado modeled after the famous 
River Walk in San Antonio, Texas. Both Pueblo and San Antonio had 
tragic flood events in 1921 that impacted life and property in their 
communities. After this flood Pueblo made the decision to relocate the 
Arkansas River flow behind a levee south of the downtown area to 
protect the city from future flood events. The coalition of Pueblo 
citizens visited with San Antonio and gathered information on their 
River Walk. After many visits and meetings with our new friends in San 
Antonio the Pueblo group realized that returning the river to the 
historic path through the downtown core could create new economic 
activity.
    Communities in crisis are often willing to take risks. In 1993, the 
City of Pueblo created the HARP Commission and charged this citizen 
group with the responsibility to design, fund, and construct this 
multiple-phase, city-owned project.
    The main objectives for the Riverwalk project included:

   Pulling Pueblo out of its economic slump

   The revitalization and beautification of downtown

   Overcoming the single industry focus, and

   Repositioning Pueblo as a tourist and recreation destination

    In November of 1995, the citizens of Pueblo passed a 20-year, 
$12.85 million bond issue to build the basic infrastructure of the 
Riverwalk. Subsequent years saw an additional $20 million in 
investments and projects in the Riverwalk which established the 
groundwork for over $100 million in additional investments and 
improvements in the downtown area. The HARP Foundation, a 501(c) (3) 
non-profit organization was also established in 1995, for the purpose 
of soliciting funds from the public and private sectors to help finance 
the construction of the Riverwalk and enhance the visitor experience. 
Groundbreaking for construction took place on September 27, 1996. The 
HARP Foundation has played an instrumental role in the development of 
the Riverwalk since it officially kicked off the initial capital 
campaign on August 15, 1996 which raised the remaining needed funds to 
complete Phases I and II of HARP.
    The Riverwalk was officially dedicated and opened to the public on 
October 6, 2000. Upon completion of Phases I & II of the project, the 
City of Pueblo dissolved the HARP Commission and a new entity, the HARP 
Authority, was formed through an intergovernmental agreement between 
the City of Pueblo, Pueblo County, Pueblo Board of Water Works, Pueblo 
Urban Renewal Authority and the Pueblo Conservancy District (Exhibit 
1). The HARP Authority is responsible for the promotion, management, 
supervision, operation, development, and maintenance of the Riverwalk. 
The management arm, HARP Authority, and the 501(c)3 funding arm, HARP 
Foundation, work together under a single Executive Director. This 
structure allows for a consistent mission and centralized future 
planning.
    In 2006 construction began for Phase III, funding consisted of EDA, 
Community Block Development Grants (CBDG), community donations and 
corporate donations. This area was named Gateway Park and construction 
was completed in October of 2007.
    Gateway Park was the site of the next project the construction of a 
pedestrian bridge. This bridge known as Veterans' Bridge received 
funding from Federal programs such as American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act (ARRA), TIGER, and FASTER, state programs such as 
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), community donations and 
corporate donations. Veterans' Bridge was completed in 2010. This 
monument celebrates our community's strong military history, we are 
known as ``The Home of Heroes''. The bridge is also featured on 
Pueblo's Walk of Valor tour, the tour has several stops on the 
Riverwalk and in the downtown area.
    In 2013 to celebrate Pueblo's connection to Zebulon Pike, we 
installed a world class collection of bronze art depicting animals 
observed during the 1806 expedition of Zebulon Pike. In Pike's journal 
he described his camp as being located near the confluence of the 
Arkansas and Fountain Rivers. This $450,000 art installation was 
donated to the Riverwalk by a local foundation that believes the Pueblo 
community and visitors should be able to enjoy fine art created by 
nationally recognized artists. We offer a free Zebulon Pike History 
curriculum to schools upon request. Students utilize the outdoor 
education center and classroom labs to study plants, animals, water 
quality and Pike history. The Riverwalk made a perfect background to 
display this art and tell this story.
2. Future Planning
    Our story is not finished. Per the master plan for the Riverwalk we 
have been designing and constructing elements as funding becomes 
available.
    In September of 2019 the Riverwalk will be completing a $2.7 
million-dollar phase funded by the City of Pueblo, EDA, Colorado's 
Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) and the Colorado Regional Tourism 
Act. This phase creates the long-awaited Riverwalk channel Convention 
Center connection. The project became a reality when the City of Pueblo 
was awarded the Colorado Regional Tourism Act grant funding. Some of 
the other features incorporated in this phase are a children's play 
area with a chuckwagon climbing feature, and a bronze sculpture display 
depicting the Charles Goodnight-Oliver Loving Cattle Drive and 
educational plaques describing Pueblo's role in the early days of the 
cattle industry.
    Funding provided by a 2016 ballot issue approved by Pueblo County 
residents will make available $8.7 million dollars for design and 
construction of the Gateway Center Boathouse, and the eastward 
extension of the Riverwalk channel. The design portion of this project 
will begin in the fall of 2019 and we anticipate construction 
completion in 2021. This eastward extension positions the channel per 
the masterplan, so that in future phases would take the Riverwalk 
channel to the east under the I-25 interstate.
    We are currently seeking funding for Riverwalk development to the 
west. The Western Expansion plan would unify property adjacent to the 
west end of the Riverwalk. (Exhibits 2 & 3) This property consists of 
shallow cooling ponds from a decommissioned coal burning power plant, 
warehouses, and other industrial type businesses. Redevelopment of this 
area and the existing adjoining properties would open up an area for 
additional Riverwalk recreation activities and commercial development 
sites.
3. Impact
    The impact of having the Riverwalk in downtown Pueblo has been 
significant.
    This project has been vital in attracting new businesses thereby 
diversifying and stabilizing the local economy as well as the Southern 
Colorado region.
    Our local visitor's bureau data tells us that since the Riverwalk 
has been created we have increased visits from Colorado residents and 
surrounding states, this as a result has brought in and supported new 
businesses such as restaurants, hotels and retail shops.
    Property tax data indicates the Riverwalk area has higher property 
values and boasts some of the most valuable real estate in Pueblo 
County.
    This project has created a new level of quality of life for 
residents, this is where they bring friends and family.
    Our hospitals and other large employers use the Riverwalk as a 
recruitment tool to attract new employees and their families.
    The Riverwalk is an anchor to Colorado Certified Creative District, 
as designated by Colorado Creative Industries.
    The success of each Riverwalk phase has made the project eligible 
for new funding opportunities.
    The Riverwalk attracts over 500,000 visitors annually from 
Colorado, and bordering states.
    The Riverwalk creates business activity for downtown Pueblo by 
marketing public and private events that are as diverse as the 
community itself from outdoor movies, July 4th fireworks, music 
concerts, and locally sponsored events to weddings, company gatherings, 
and non-profit fundraisers. Excursion boats, gondola rides and pedal 
boats are available to the public throughout the warm-weather season 
and can also be reserved for private tours. Musicians and other 
creative industry partners have organized performances of dance, music 
and theater at the Riverwalk.
    We measure our success by the local businesses reporting increased 
foot traffic through their doors when we program events and activities 
on the Riverwalk. For example, live music and a farmer's market on a 
Thursday evening increases one restaurant's business by 60 percent. The 
beauty and activity of today's Riverwalk is a stark contrast to the 
downtown district that previously consisted of parking lots, stormwater 
runoff ditches and utility cooling ponds. This is our community's front 
door and it has all of the curb appeal we envisioned to bring more 
business to that door. It is the jewel and centerpiece for Pueblo's 
downtown revitalization efforts and is known as Pueblo's Happy Place. 
(Exhibit 4)
5. Conclusion
    A waterfront district in the downtown area supports economic 
development and the continued endeavor for growth and transformation. 
Revitalization efforts have changed the face of Pueblo from what was 
once a single-industry town devastated by unemployment to a growing 
community with a brighter future. The original objectives to pull the 
city out of an economic slump, beautify the downtown, and become a 
tourist destination are a part of our present and future vision.
    Exhibits 1-4 follow this page.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                          Amended and Restated
         Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo (HARP) Authority
                      INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
    THIS Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement (the 
``Agreement'') entered into as of May 19, 2008 between Pueblo, a 
Municipal Corporation, organized and existing under the constitution 
and laws of the state of Colorado (herein ``City''); Pueblo County, 
Colorado, a political subdivision of the state of Colorado, organized 
and existing under the constitution and laws of the state of Colorado 
(the ``County''); Pueblo Conservancy District, a special district 
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Colorado (the 
``District''); the Urban Renewal Authority of Pueblo, Colorado, a 
corporate body organized pursuant to the Laws of the State of Colorado 
(``URA'') and the Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado an 
independent body established, organized and existing under the charter 
of the City (the ``Board''), (individually the ``Party'' and 
collectively the ``Parties''), WITNES SETH:
                               RECITALS:
    A. Sections 18(2)(a) and (b) of Article XIV of the constitution of 
the state of Colorado and the Colorado Intergovernmental Relationships 
statute, Sec. 29-1-2-1 et. seq. C.R.S., authorize political 
subdivisions to cooperate and contract with one another, including the 
establishment of a separate entity, to provide any function, service or 
facility lawfully authorized to each of the contracting units, 
including the sharing of costs, if such contract sets forth fully the 
purposes, powers, rights, obligations, and responsibilities, financial 
or otherwise, of the contracting parties.
    B. Each of the Parties is a political subdivision as defined in the 
Sec. 29-1-202(2) C.R.S. and desires to cooperate and contract among 
themselves to create a separate legal entity to promote, manage, 
supervise, operate, develop, and maintain the project within the 
jurisdictional boundaries of each of the Parties known as the Historic 
Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo (the ``HARP'').
    C. The Promotion, management, supervision, operation, development, 
and maintenance of HARP will be in furtherance of the purposes of, and 
within the powers and authority of each of the Parties.
    D. The Parties, except URA, entered into an Intergovernmental 
Agreement dated December 1, 1997 creating the Historic Arkansas 
Riverwalk of Pueblo Authority (the ``Original Intergovernmental 
Agreement'').
    E. The Original Intergovernmental Agreement has been amended and is 
further amended by this agreement, which amendments include but are not 
limited to the addition of URA as a Party. This Agreement constitutes a 
restatement of the Original Intergovernmental Agreement as it exists as 
of the effective date hereof.
                               AGREEMENT
    In consideration of the foregoing Recitals and mutual covenants and 
conditions contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, 
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City, 
County, District, URA and Board agree as follows:
                         ARTICLE I--DEFINITIONS
    For purposes of this Agreement, the following defined terms shall 
have the meaning given to them in this Article:
    1.1 ``Act'' means the Colorado Intergovernmental Immunity Act, 
Sec. 24-10-101 et. seq. C.R.S. and any amendments thereto or 
substitutions therefore.
    1.2 ``Bonds'' means the $12,850,000 City of Pueblo, Colorado 
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996.
    1.3 ``Development Plan'' or ``Plan'' means the HARP Program Diagram 
dated November 26, 1996 attached hereto as Exhibit ``A'' and as same 
may be hereafter amended by consent of all of the Parties to this 
Agreement.
    1.4 ``Land'' means and includes Public Land and Private Land.
    1.5 ``Private Land'' means, Lot 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots 2 
and 3, Block 4; and Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 and facilities thereon within 
the Subdivision.
    1.6 ``Public Land'' means all the land and facilities thereon 
within any Subdivision except the Private Land.
    1.7 ``Subdivision'' means the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk Project, 
Filing One, as amended, from time to time, by the approval of both the 
City and the District.
           ARTICLE II--HISTORIC ARKANSAS RIVERWALK AUTHORITY
    2.1 There is hereby created and organized as a separate legal 
entity pursuant to Sec. 29-1-203 C.R.S., the Historic Arkansas 
Riverwalk of Pueblo Authority (the ``Authority''), whose function, 
purpose and obligation shall be to promote, manage, supervise, operate, 
develop, and maintain HARP. The Authority shall be an agency and 
instrumentality of the State of Colorado separate from the Parties, 
and, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Agreement, shall 
not be subject to administrative direction by the Parties nor their 
respective officers or employees. The creation of the Authority, 
effective December 1, 1997, is hereby continued, approved, confirmed 
and ratified.
    2.2 The governing body of the Authority shall be known as the HARP 
Board of Directors (HARP Board). The HARP Board shall consist of seven 
members, two appointed by the City Council of City, one appointed by 
the Board of Pueblo County Commissioners; one appointed by the 
governing body of each of the other Parties, and one appointed by the 
majority vote of an appointment committee composed of five (5) persons, 
one (1) appointed by each of the governing bodies of the Parties. The 
members of the HARP Board may be persons other than members of the 
governing bodies of the parties. The members of the HARP Board shall be 
appointed for terms of three years, provided, that the members who are 
first appointed shall be appointed for staggered terms as follows: one 
appointed by the City Council of City for a term of one year; one 
appointed by the Board of Commissioners of County for a term of two 
years; one appointed by the members of the Board for a term of two 
years; one appointed by the directors of the District for a term of 
three years; and one appointed by the City Council of City for a term 
of three years. The member appointed by the URA shall serve an initial 
term of two years and the member appointed by the appointment committee 
shall serve an initial term of three years. Any member of the HARP 
Board may be removed at any time by a majority vote of the members of 
the governing body or bodies of the Party who appointed such member. In 
the event of the death, resignation or removal of a member, the Party 
or Parties who appointed such member shall promptly appoint a successor 
member to fill the unexpired term of such member.
    2.3 Four members of the HARP Board shall constitute a quorum. An 
affirmative vote of at least four members is necessary to approve or 
authorize any action by the HARP Board. The HARP Board shall annually 
elect a chairperson, vice-chairperson, secretary and treasurer from its 
members and shall adopt its own bylaws, which shall not be inconsistent 
with any provision of the Agreement.
    2.4 The Assistant City Manager for Community Development shall be 
an ex-officio member of the HARP Board without vote.
    2.5 The HARP Board shall have the power and the authority to 
exercise all the powers of the Authority.
    2.6 All meetings of the HARP Board shall be conducted in accordance 
with the Colorado Open Meetings Law, Sec. 24-6-401 et. seq. C.R.S., as 
amended or replaced.
    2.7 Members of the HARP Board shall serve without compensation.
                  ARTICLE III--POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY
    3.1 The Authority may exercise any and all powers in the 
furtherance of its function, purpose, and obligation, which powers 
shall include, but shall not be limited to the following powers:

    To make and enter into contracts that are in the furtherance of the 
function, purpose and obligation of the Authority with the Parties to 
the Agreement (either jointly or separately), the state of Colorado, 
the Federal government, any other governmental body or unit, or any 
private person, partnership or corporation or other private entity; 
provided, however, that (i) before the purchase of supplies, materials, 
services, or equipment ample opportunity be given for competitive 
bidding, in accordance with an established HARP Authority Purchase 
Policy, and (ii) contracts for improvements be awarded to the lowest 
and best bidder by competitive sealed bidding after ample advertising. 
The Authority, however, may use design-build arrangements and contracts 
with contractors and material suppliers when a donor's restrictions so 
limit the nature or scope of a construction project or the installation 
of a public improvement is so singularly unique that it does not lend 
itself to competitive sealed bidding procedures and requirements. The 
Authority shall, however, use its best efforts to solicit proposals 
from companies and contractors who build or supply materials for such 
unique projects before selecting any contractor or construction 
supplier for a design build project or purchase.
    (b) To have the management, control and supervision of all the 
business and affairs of the Authority.
    (c) To appoint, hire, and retain employees and independent agents, 
contractors, engineers, and attorneys.
    (d) To fix and from time to time increase or decrease fees, rates 
or charges for services, programs, or facilities furnished by the 
Authority.
    (e) To promote and market HARP and activities conducted thereon.
    (0 To request proposals for, negotiate, and make recommendations to 
the City Council of City with respect to contracts, leases and permits 
for the development, use, lease, sale or other disposition of Private 
Land. Each recommendation shall be detailed and include, without 
limitation, data and information in support of the recommendation, a 
copy of the request of proposals and responses thereto by parties other 
than the party who is the subject of the recommendation.
    (g) To review and make recommendations to the City Council of City 
for the use, development, construction, installation, removal and 
renovation of Public Land and disposition of funds available therefore.
    (h) To sue or be sued and to be a party to suits, actions, and 
proceedings.
    (i) To obtain appropriate liability and casualty insurance.
    (j) To appropriate and expend funds in accordance with the Approved 
Annual Plan and Budget adopted and approved as provided in Article IV 
hereof.
    (k) To issue or reissue revenue bonds, notes or other obligations 
payable from the revenue derived from the functions, services, or 
facilities of the Authority; provided, however, that the term, 
conditions, details, sale and payment of such bonds, notes or other 
obligations, the proceedings relating thereto, the pledge of revenue, 
and the refunding thereof shall be set forth in a resolution approved 
by the governing body of each Party (except the Board).
    (l) To have and exercise all rights and powers necessary or 
incidental to or implied from the specific powers hereby granted.
    3.2 The Authority shall maintain in good repair, and renovate, 
rebuild, and replace all public improvement within HARP including 
without limitation, all buildings, structures, waterways, waterfalls, 
statuary and exhibits, and shall insure upon completion such 
improvements against damage, injury, loss, theft, malicious mischief 
and vandalism in amount not less than their full insurable value. For 
purposes hereof, ``public improvements'' include all improvements 
within HARP that are owned by the City of Pueblo or contracted by, 
through or for the City of Pueblo or works of art that the City of 
Pueblo has accepted. Public improvements exclude those owned by a 
private person or entity. The City agrees to assign to the Authority 
any warranties provided by contractors or artists for the public 
improvements covered by this agreement.
                           ARTICLE IV--BUDGET
    4.1 The HARP Board shall, after consultation with the appropriate 
officers of each Party, prepare an annual operating plan and line item 
budget for the promotion, management, supervision, maintenance, 
development, and operation of HARP specifically identifying all items 
of anticipated revenues (including funds from each Party except the 
Board) and expenditures for the next calendar year (the ``Annual Plan 
and Budget''). The Parties acknowledge and agree that because the Board 
has assumed the expense and responsibility of providing and furnishing 
water for HARP, the Board shall be excluded from and not be responsible 
for appropriating any other funds for HARP. For purposes of the Article 
IV, ``appropriate officers of each Party'' means and includes the chief 
executive officer and financial officer of each Party.
    4.2 The appropriate officers of each Party shall jointly meet with 
the HARP Board, or the HARP Executive Director, no later than August 20 
of each year to consult in the preparation of the Annual Plan and 
Budget.
    4.3 The Annual Plan and Budget shall be submitted to each Party on 
or before August 31 of each year, commencing August 31, 2008.
    4.4 The appropriate officers of each Party (except the Board) shall 
cause the annual budget prepared and submitted by such officers to the 
governing body of such Party to contain a specific line item for an 
appropriation to the Authority based upon the Annual Plan and Budget 
submitted by the HARP Board together with written recommendations, if 
any, of such officers. The governing body of each Party shall, in its 
sole discretion, approve such budgeted specific line item for 
appropriation to the Authority in an amount equal to, or greater or 
lesser than the amount contained in HARP Board's Annual Plan and 
Budget. The funds budgeted and appropriated by a Party may be disbursed 
to the Authority on such periodic basis during the calendar year as 
that Party may determine. If, during any calendar year, Authority 
revenues are greater than revenues contained in the Approved Annual 
Plan and Budget for that calendar year, each Party may proportionately 
reduce its appropriation to the Authority for that calendar year.
    4.5 The Parties, (except the Board) hereby declare their present 
intention and expectation to annually appropriate and budget a pro-rata 
equitable share of the expenses in excess of revenues for the 
promotion, management, supervision, operation, development and 
maintenance of HARP as follows: Beginning in the 2008 budget year, the 
Parties' share of expenses in excess of revenues shall be as follows: 
50 percent by City and 40 percent by County, with the balance to be 
shared as follows: (i) URA--$20,000, with the intent to be increased to 
a maximum of $50,000 per year, and (ii) District $50,000 per year in 
addition to any maintenance reimbursement. Provided however, that this 
declaration shall not be construed as contractually obligating or 
binding on any Party. Provided further, that the obligation of the 
Pueblo Conservancy District is further conditioned on the Pueblo 
Conservancy District receiving funding from a proposed Maintenance Fee 
Assessment levied upon property benefited by the Arkansas River Levy 
maintained by the Pueblo Conservancy District. It is the further intent 
of the Parties, that the decision to budget and appropriate funds for 
the promotion, management, supervision, operation and maintenance of 
HARP shall be made solely by the respective governing body of each 
Party, and not by HARP Board or any officer of the Parties. Any 
obligation of a Party to budget and appropriate funds for the 
promotion, management, supervision, operation, development, and 
maintenance of HARP shall be from year to year only and shall not 
constitute a mandatory payment obligation of the party in any Fiscal 
Year beyond a Fiscal Year during which such funds are budgeted and 
appropriated. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof shall be 
construed or interpreted as creating a general obligation or debt or 
indebtedness or multiple-Fiscal Year direct or indirect debt or other 
financial obligation whatsoever of any Party within the meaning of any 
constitutional, statutory or charter debt limitation.
    4.6 The HARP Board, after adoption of the budgets of each Party, 
shall adopt the Authority's Annual Plan and Budget including the 
amounts, if any, each Party has budgeted and appropriated for the 
promotion, management, supervision, operation and maintenance of HARP 
for the next calendar year (the ``Approved Annual Plan and Budget'').
    4.7 The HARP Board shall only commit and expend funds in accordance 
with the Approved Annual Plan and Budget and shall not make any 
budgetary appropriation or encumbrance or incur any debt or multiple-
Fiscal Year financial obligation or initiate any purchase or 
construction of any facility, improvement or equipment which will 
require an expenditure or payment in any succeeding Fiscal Year unless 
the financial obligations of the Authority payable in any succeeding 
Fiscal Year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being 
appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available.
    4.8 All revenues derived from (a) the use or lease (but not the 
sale or other disposition) of the Private Land, and (b) the use of, and 
activities conducted on the Public Land and facilities located thereon 
(except facilities, including without limitation, parking areas and 
parking facilities, constructed or installed on the Public Land by City 
funds other than the net proceeds of the Bonds; provided, however, that 
City funds shall constitute a majority of the funds used for such 
construction or installation and for such purpose ``City funds'' means 
and includes all grants and awards to the City by the Federal or state 
government or any agency thereof) shall be paid to, collected and held 
by the Authority in a separate account and expended by the Authority 
solely for the maintenance and operation of HARP. Authority will at 
least quarterly prepare and submit to each Party a financial report 
showing by line item all such revenues and expenditures during the 
prior quarter, year-to-date, and prior two years' actual revenues and 
expenditures.
    4.9 The HARP Board may appoint advisory committees consisting of 
such persons and for such purposes as the HARP Board may determine.
                               ARTICLE V
    5.1 The Land is owned by the City. As included within the 
Development Plan and Subdivision, portions of land previously owned by 
the District (the ``District Land'') and transferred to the City are 
and will be used in compliance with and meet the flood control and 
recreational purposes and responsibilities of District. City will hold, 
use and transfer District Land only in compliance with the Development 
Plan and Subdivision.
    5.2 The HARP Board shall deliver to City Council of City and to the 
other Parties its written recommendations for the development, use, 
lease, sale or other disposition of all or any portion of Private Land 
which shall be consistent and in conformity with the Development Plan 
and Subdivision (the ``Recommendations''). City Council of City will 
authorize and approve the development, use, lease, sale or other 
disposition of Private Land in accordance with the Recommendations, 
unless the City Council of City, for any reason, after public hearing 
held within sixty (60) days after receipt of complete and detailed 
Recommendations, rejects, alters or modifies, in whole or in part, the 
Recommendations (the ``City Council Action''). In such event, the City 
Council of City, in its discretion, may either (a) return the 
Recommendations with the City Council Action to the HARP Board for 
reconsideration, or (b) direct that the Private Land be developed, 
used, leased, sold or otherwise disposed of as the City Council of City 
may determine, provided such determination is consistent and in 
conformity with the Development Plan and Subdivision. The provisions of 
the Article 5.2 shall not prevent nor be construed to prevent the City 
Council from acting with respect to such Recommendations earlier than 
said 60-day period, provided, however, that if the Recommendations or 
City Council Action relate to the sale of the Private Land, the City 
Council of City may not act with respect thereto earlier than thirty 
(30) days after receipt of such Recommendations. Notice of any public 
hearing provided for in the Article 5.2 shall be given to the Authority 
at least ten (10) calendar days before the date of the public hearing.
    5.3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-21 of the Charter of 
the City, City Council of City shall create a Special Fund and will 
segregate and hold in the Special Fund and appropriate and expend the 
net proceeds from the sale or other disposition of Private Land (but 
not the lease or use of Private Land) for the improvement, maintenance, 
development, and renovation of HARP; provided however; that prior to 
the City Council's appropriation of said funds for the stated purposes, 
the City Council of City may consider any written recommendations of 
the HARP Board with respect to any such appropriation received by the 
City Council of City prior to any specific appropriation.
    5.4 On written recommendation of the HARP Board, the City Council 
of City will cause to be placed on its agenda an appropriate resolution 
or ordinance setting forth needed rules, regulations, fees, rates and 
charges for or with respect to the use of the Public Land and 
activities conducted thereon, provided that any such resolution or 
ordinance and all provisions thereof shall be subject to approval and 
adoption by the City Council of City in its sole discretion.
    5.5 No Disqualified Person shall acquire or hold any interest, 
direct or indirect, in any contract, development agreement, lease, or 
permit for the development, lease, use, purchase, sale or other 
disposition of Private Land (the ``Development Project''), nor shall 
any Disqualified Person have any interest, direct or indirect, in any 
contract or proposed contract for materials or services to be furnished 
or used in connection with any Development Project. Every contract, 
development agreement, lease or permit made in violation of the Article 
5.5 shall be voidable by the Authority, unless a majority of the HARP 
Board determines that, in light of such interest, the participation of 
the Disqualified Person in such Development Project would not be 
contrary to the public interest. For purposes thereof ``Disqualified 
Person'' means and includes (a) a member of the HARP Board or employee 
of the Authority, (b) an immediate member of the family (spouse, 
father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister) of any member of the 
HARP Board or employee of the Authority, and (c) any corporation, 
limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietorship, trust or 
other person or entity carrying on a business in which a person 
described in (a) or (b) above has a financial ownership or employment 
interest, or in which such person is an officer, manager or director.
                       ARTICLE VI--BOND PROCEEDS
    6.1 City will use the net proceeds of the Bonds to construct, 
acquire and improve HARP.
                           ARTICLE VII--WATER
    7.1 The Board will make available and supply water to the HARP 
project in the quantities set forth and subject to the conditions set 
forth below:
    7.2 Non-Potable Water
    (a) The Board is a party to a Real Property Lease with Utilicorp 
United, Inc., by its Division, WestPlains Energy, dated September 9, 
1996 and recorded September 30, 1996 in Book 2932, Page 991, Instrument 
No. 1140809 of the records of the Pueblo County Clerk and Recorder (the 
``Lease'') under the provisions of which WestPlains is obligated to 
continuously divert, transport, and store, through and in the 
WestPlains water facilities, the amount of water lawfully available and 
reasonably necessary to accomplish the decreed beneficial uses under 
the WestPlains Water Rights. The return flow from said water usage will 
be a portion of the water that the Board will supply to the HARP 
project.
    The Lease also provided for a right of first refusal to the Board 
to purchase both the WestPlains Water Facilities and the WestPlains 
Water Rights. The Board is not obligated to exercise said right of 
first refusal and may not do so.
    (b) The Board received a decree in Case No. 93 CW 086 in the 
District Court, Water Division No. 2 in Colorado, for conditional water 
rights and a plan of augmentation for the HARP project. In Case No. 
04CW014 in the District, Water Division No 2. in Colorado, the Board 
received a decree making a portion of the HARP water right absolute and 
continuing the remaining conditional rights in good standing.
    The quantities of non-potable water to be furnished by the Board in 
connection with the HARP project shall be limited to:
    (1) those waters which pursuant to the Lease Agreement are 
obligated to be diverted by Utilicorp, return flows from which will be 
utilized in the HARP project;
    (2) the water derived from the rights of Utilicorp, if in fact they 
are eventually purchased by the Board pursuant to the right of first 
refusal;
    (3) the water decreed to the Board in Case No. 93 CW 086, District 
Court, Water Division No. 2,
    (4) such water of the Board from its other supplies not to exceed 
90 acre-feet per Annum.
    In explanation, the HARP project has been designed so that it can 
function if necessary with quantities of water smaller than the 
existing WestPlains diversions. By the closing of certain gates and 
structures, the quantities of water flowing in the channel can be 
greatly reduced, while still substantially maintaining the appearance 
of a flowing stream. The Board will promptly notify the Authority of 
any changes in water supply available from the Lease Agreement or other 
sources that will necessitate the closing of gates or structures in 
order to operate the HARP project.
    The Board agrees to furnish from its HARP decree, and other water 
sources, a quantity of water to the HARP project to augment, supplement 
or replace the WestPlains return flows as necessary in a quantity not 
to exceed 90 acre-feet per annum.
    7.3 The water to be furnished by the Board in connection with the 
HARP project shall be limited to the existing boundaries of the project 
as they are described in the Development Plan. The Board shall not be 
obligated without a further agreement to supply water to any expanded 
or increased HARP project.
    7.4 Potable Water. Any potable water to be supplied by the Board to 
the HARP project will be furnished in accordance with the Board's then 
existing policies concerning potable water furnished to the City of 
Pueblo, its parks, buildings or facilities, except as set forth below. 
For the purposes of the Board's existing policies, the irrigated areas 
of the HARP project shall be construed to be and shall constitute a 
park 5 acres and larger. Potable water supplied for irrigation under 
Article 7.4 of this Agreement shall not exceed 7.55 million gallons per 
annum and shall be supplied by the Board without rates, fees or other 
charges. Potable water shall be supplied from existing Board mains, and 
the Board shall not be responsible for extending said mains or service 
lines at its cost. Any such costs of extended mains or service lines 
shall be at the expense of the HARP project. Potable water use shall be 
metered and monitored by the HARP Authority in the same manner as water 
furnished to City parks.
    7.5 If the buildings are city-owned, leased or occupied, the Board 
will charge for water furnished and the extension of water service in 
accordance with the Board's then existing policies concerning potable 
water furnished to the City of Pueblo, its buildings or facilities.
    7.6 Small Structures. Small entertainment or refreshment kiosks or 
structures may be established within HARP, including those which may 
not be leased to private lessees, on land not designated as building 
pad sites with the HARP project. The Board will charge for water 
furnished and the extension of water service to any such structures in 
accordance with the Board's then existing policies concerning portable 
water furnished to the City of Pueblo, its buildings or facilities.
    7.7 Return Flows. The return flows from all non-potable water 
furnished by the Board to the HARP project shall not be recycled and 
shall be allowed to return to the Arkansas River. Any fountains or 
water features of the HARP project served by potable water shall be 
recirculated insofar as reasonably possible without the expenditure of 
excessive monies on engineering and recirculating equipment.
    7.8 Board Review of Fountains and Water Features. The design of all 
fountains or water features to be incorporated in the HARP project 
shall be submitted in a timely fashion to the Board and the Board shall 
have the opportunity to examine and approve or disapprove said features 
in the context of the adequacy of water supplies and the Board's 
existing water distribution system to serve said fountains or water 
features. ``Water feature'' for purposed of this Agreement means a 
fountain, waterfall or other structure, the use of which would 
significantly increase the loss of water by evaporation or seepage 
beyond the loss which would normally occur in the HARP channel or lake 
areas of the HARP project. If in the Board's opinion, the fountains or 
water features are not appropriately designed for the use of the 
supplies of water and system available to the HARP project to be 
furnished by the Board, the Board may approve or disapprove of such 
design of fountains or water features. Approval shall not be 
unreasonably withheld or delayed, but if the Board disapproves, then 
the Board shall not be obligated to furnish water, either potable or 
non-potable under this Agreement for such water features or fountains, 
the plans for which the Board has not approved, provided, however, that 
if the Board disapproves, any other Party to the Agreement may, upon 
written notice given to the Board within thirty (30) days after its 
decision to disapprove, request the Board to reconsider its decision.
         ARTICLE VIII--LIABILITY, INDEMNIFICATION AND IMMUNITY
    8.1 Neither the individual members of the HARP Board, nor any of 
the Parties, or their governing bodies, officers, agents or employees, 
shall be liable or responsible for any act or undertaking of Authority, 
contractual or otherwise, regardless of the procedure by which such act 
or undertaking may be entered into, including the approval by any 
Party.
    8.2 The Authority shall, to the extent permitted and within the 
limitations of the ``Act'', indemnify and defend each Board member, 
officer and employee of the Authority in connection with any claim or 
actual threatened suite, action, proceedings in which he or she may be 
involved in his or her official capacity by reason of his or her being 
or having been a Board member, officer or employee of the Authority, or 
by reason of any action or omission by him or her in any such capacity; 
provided, however, the Authority shall have no obligation to indemnify 
and defend any such board member, officer or employee of the Authority 
for any suit, claim, action or proceedings arising out of criminal 
offenses, willful and wanton acts or omissions, or gross negligence of 
such councilmember, officer or employee. The Authority's obligations 
pursuant to this Section shall be limited to monies of the Authority 
available for such purpose, including, but not limited to, insurance 
proceeds.
    8.3 Immunity. The Authority, the County, the City, the District, 
the URA and the Board, and their respective board members, 
commissioners, council members, officers and employees shall be 
entitled to all immunities, protections and limits on liability 
provided by the Act and all other applicable laws in connection with 
the organization, operation and activities of the Authority and the 
activities of the District, the URA, the Board, the County and the City 
in connection therewith. None of such immunities, protections or limits 
on liability may be waived.
            ARTICLE IX--DEFAULT, WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION
    9.1 If a Party remains in default in the performance of any of its 
obligations hereunder for a period of sixty (60) days after receipt of 
written notice from the HARP Board or any other Party specifying such 
default, the HARP Board or any other Party may:
    (a) remove such defaulting Party as a participating Party under 
this Agreement (the ``Removal''); and/or,
    (b) institute appropriate legal action in law or equity, including 
specific performance, to enforce the defaulting Party's obligations 
hereunder.
    In the event of litigation under this Agreement, the court shall 
award the prevailing party its costs and expenses, including reasonable 
expert witness and attorney fees.
    9.2 Any Party may withdraw as a participating Party under this 
Agreement upon action taken by its governing body delivered to 
Authority and each of the other Parties at least one hundred eighty 
(180) days prior to December 31 of the year of withdrawal (the 
``Withdrawal'').
    9.3 The term and position of any member of HARP Board appointed by 
a Removed or Withdrawn Party shall automatically expire and vacate upon 
the effective date of such Removal or Withdrawal.
    9.4 Except as otherwise provided in Article 9.5, this Agreement 
shall remain in full force and effect until terminated by the mutual 
consent of all Parties, except Removed or Withdrawn Parties whose 
consent shall not be required.
    9.5 The Withdrawal or Removal of any Party shall not terminate this 
Agreement or the Authority. Upon the Withdrawal or Removal of any 
Party, the remaining Parties shall expeditiously amend and modify this 
Agreement to continue the Authority upon such terms and conditions as 
such other parties shall mutually agree; provided, however, that if the 
other Parties do not so amend or modify this Agreement within ninety 
(90) days after the effective date of the Removal or Withdrawal of any 
Party, this Agreement and Authority shall terminate and cancel.
    9.6 The provision and obligations of Articles 5.1 and 7 shall 
survive the Withdrawal or Removal of any Party, the termination of this 
Agreement, and/or the dissolution of Authority for the benefit of the 
City and District. Article 5.1 may be enforced by District and Article 
7 may be enforced by City.
    9.7 In the event of the termination of this Agreement or the 
dissolution of Authority, all assets of Authority shall be transferred 
to City to be used for the promotion, management, supervision, 
operation, and maintenance of HARP. The term ``assets of Authority'' 
shall not include the water rights or water leases owned by the Board.
                        ARTICLE X--MISCELLANEOUS
    10.1 This Agreement shall become effective upon the date this 
Agreement is approved by the governing bodies of all the Parties, and 
may be amended or modified in writing approved by the governing bodies 
of all the Parties, except Removed or Withdrawn Parties.
    10.2 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in 
accordance with the laws of the state of Colorado.
    10.3 If any section, clause or provision of this Agreement shall 
for any reason be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such 
determination shall not affect any of the remaining sections, clauses 
or provisions of the Agreement.
    10.4 This Agreement may not be assigned in whole or in part by any 
Party. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon 
the Parties and their respective successors.
    10.5 Nothing in this Agreement expressed or implied is intended or 
shall be construed to confer upon any person, firm or corporation other 
than the District, the Board, the County, the URA, and the City any 
right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement, this 
Agreement being intended to be for the sole and exclusive benefit of 
the District, the Board, the County, the URA, and the City.
    10.6 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, 
each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original; 
but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same 
agreement.
    10.7 Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to 
limit, impair or restrain any of the powers and authority of the City, 
the County, the District, the URA, or the Board, conferred by 
constitution, statute, charter or other laws, including but not limited 
to, the lawful exercise of their respective legislative powers.
    10.8 Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to modify, amend or 
repeal any action duly taken by the HARP Authority under and pursuant 
to the Original Intergovernmental Agreement.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Mr. Friis.

        STATEMENT OF MICHAEL (MIKE) J. FRIIS, EXECUTIVE

         COMMITTEE MEMBER, NATIONAL WORKING WATERFRONT

            NETWORK; DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION'S

              WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

    Mr. Friis. Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to 
provide this testimony and speak with you today regarding our 
Nation's working waterfronts.
    Many cities and towns were built around working waterfronts 
which shaped our character and economies. The diversity of 
their geographies and histories are ours. As a nation, places 
are part of what we have achieved and as valuable resources to 
our Nation's economy, they are part of our future.
    In Wisconsin, our coastal communities have made significant 
improvements to increase access and maintain the commercial 
viability of their coastal waterfronts, but with the current 
climatic conditions and rapid deterioration of infrastructure, 
they are struggling to keep up. Coastal communities are facing 
several natural waterfront challenges such as high water 
levels, bluff erosion, and increased frequency and severity of 
coastal storms and flash flood events. In addition, communities 
are left dealing with manmade challenges like legacy 
contaminants on land and in water and an aging water-based 
infrastructure that commercial and recreational users depend 
upon.
    Examples of Wisconsin and Great Lakes regional efforts to 
address the issues include a Wisconsin Coastal Management 
Program's partnership with the City and County of Milwaukee, 
and numerous nonprofits have enhanced public access to the 
water for the area's residents and visitors. The Menomonee 
Valley in the heart of Milwaukee was a forgotten place for 
generations. Just below the bluffs of working class 
neighborhoods, the river was blocked by railroads, highways, 
and high sheet pile walls along factory property lines with no 
public access to the thousands of residents who lived within 
walking distance.
    Through the Coastal Program's support on several projects 
along the Menomonee Valley, public access has been opened. 
Sheet pile walls have been replaced by natural riverbanks and 
paths to the river's edge, canoe launches and fishing piers 
have been built. And the river is now visited by anglers, 
families, and classes of children.
    Like living in a highly urban setting, physical and 
cognitive disabilities may limit a person's ability and 
exposure to water-based outdoor recreational experiences. 
Partnerships and investments from the Coastal Program have 
provided the connection and experiences to the Great Lakes, 
their shores and tributaries. These amenities that enhance the 
quality of life and allow for a personal experience with our 
coastal resources also fosters and creates a stewardship ethic 
that will preserve them.
    CARES is a project acronym that stands for Coastal Action 
for Resilient and Economic Security of southwest Wisconsin's 
bluffs, beach, and infrastructure assets. This effort is 
providing resources and assistance to communities in southeast 
Wisconsin to plan for and prepare for coastal hazards. Funded 
by the former NOAA Regional Coastal Resiliency Grant Program, 
this project has enabled the Wisconsin Coastal Management 
Program and partners to collaborate and provide needed 
resources and focused assistance to 22 municipalities in four 
counties in southeast Wisconsin dealing with Lake Michigan 
coastal hazards, which are currently exasperated by high water 
levels.
    This effort is bringing together local governments in the 
region with State and Federal agencies, scientists, outreach 
specialists, and a community of practice to learn about shared 
experiences and develop an approach to plan and prepare for 
coastal hazards.
    Regionally, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Governors and 
Premiers supports implementation of the strategy for Great 
Lakes-St. Lawrence River's maritime transportation system. The 
strategy's goals are to double the maritime trade, shrink the 
environmental impact of our transportation network, and support 
the region's industrial core. Key aspects of this include but 
are not limited to harmonization of regulations and investments 
in smart ship technology.
    In conclusion, the economic and environmental wellbeing of 
our Nation's waterfronts benefits us all, and the shared 
stewardship is a responsibility we should accept.
    Intergovernmental--that is local, State, tribal, and 
federal, collaboration and cooperation is necessary to be able 
to realize and enhance our working waterfronts and build local 
capacity. Coordination allows for sharing of expertise and 
resources to realize the most successful impact.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Friis follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Michael (Mike) J. Friis, Executive Committee 
      Member, National Working Waterfront Network; Department of 
         Administration's Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    Members of the subcommittee. I'm honored to provide this testimony 
and speak with you today regarding our nations working water.
    To truly appreciate something, one must experience it firsthand. 
Wisconsin's Great Lakes are no exception. The Great Lakes are a source 
of recreation, commerce, and spiritual renewal. The tributaries, rocky 
shorelines, sandy beaches and high bluffs of Lake Michigan, Green Bay 
and Lake Superior are our gateway to their waters. Providing and 
improving public access to the coastal resources for communities and 
individuals to grow an appreciation of these places is an important 
mission of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP).
Challenges
    While many of us may think nothing of taking a walk along the 
shore, getting into a watercraft, wading into the water or fishing from 
the shore, for others it is not so simple. By their nature, some of 
these special public spaces are remote or are difficult to access for 
members of society that lack physical or financial means. Their 
inability to access these public treasures and develope an appreciation 
for our Great Lakes coastal resources is a loss for us all. Ensuring 
balanced resource protection, achieving sustainable economic 
development and maintaining the quality of life in our state is a goal 
of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. For the program it means 
all of the citizens of Wisconsin should have the opportunity for a 
personal experience and to develop an understanding of our coastal 
resources. That goal is achieved through partnerships with local 
governments and nonprofits and with the Program's funding assistance to 
develop the ideas, plans, and the construction of trails, fishing piers 
and boat launch sites that can be utilized by people with different 
physical abilities and in population centers where these amenities can 
be enjoyed and enrich the lives of as many of our fellow Wisconsinites 
and visitors as possible.
    Cities and towns were built around working waterfronts and they are 
still a valuable resource for Wisconsin's economy. Our communities have 
made a significant number of improvements to increase access to their 
coastal waterfront but with the current climatic conditions and rapid 
deterioration of infrastructure, they are struggling to keep up. Our 
coastal communities are facing a number of natural waterfront 
challenges such as high-water levels, bluff erosion and increased 
frequency and severity of coastal storms and flash flood events. In 
addition, communities are left dealing with man-made challenges like 
legacy contaminants on land and in the water and aging infrastructure 
that commercial and recreation users depend on. Our communities cannot 
keep up with the demand on their coastal waterfronts from locals, 
tourists and commercial activities without State and Federal financial 
assistance.
Wisconsin and Great Lakes Management and Development Initiatives 
        Examples
CARES--Coastal Actions for Resilience and Economic Security (CARES) of 
        Southeastern Wisconsin's bluff, beach, and infrastructure 
        assets
    This effort is providing resources and assistance to communities in 
Southeastern Wisconsin to plan and prepare for coastal hazards. Funded 
by the former NOAA Regional Coastal Resilience Grants Program, this 
project has enabled the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Wisconsin 
Sea Grant, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Southeastern 
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission to collaborate and provide 
needed resources and focused assistance to 22 municipalities and 4 
counties in Southeastern Wisconsin dealing with Lake Michigan coastal 
hazards which are currently exacerbated by high water levels. This 
effort is bringing together the local governments in the region with 
state and Federal agencies, scientists and outreach specialists in a 
``Community of Practice'' to learn about shared experiences and develop 
approaches to plan and prepare for coastal hazards.
    Project goals include: Enhanced risk awareness, Identification of 
coastal hazard vulnerabilities, guide risk-reduction actions and 
possible actions to address them; Enhanced risk awareness through 
outreach and mapping of shoreline recession; Guidance on risk-reduction 
actions like bluff best management practices, bluff slope vegetation, 
nature-based shorelines, harbor maintenance planning, and erosion-
resilient beach practices; Identification of coastal hazard 
vulnerabilities and possible actions to address them; and Funding and 
technical assistance to plan the implementation of coastal resilience 
actions.
    Early outputs of the project include:

   A ``Great Lakes Port, Harbor, and Infrastructure Cost Matrix 
        and Dredging Contract Database'' which provides a framework for 
        smaller harbors and marinas to estimate future maintenance 
        costs due to dredging and storm damage to support resilience 
        planning at these facilities.

   Mapping of historic shoreline and bluff erosion rates to 
        help understand how the coast has receded in the past to 
        identify hot spots and aid in future planning. This information 
        is available publicly on the Wisconsin Shoreline Inventory and 
        Oblique Photo Viewer.

   A ``Coastal Resilience Self-Assessment'' tool to help staff 
        and decision-makers of coastal counties and municipalities 
        weigh the effects of coastal hazards and begin to consider 
        planning and mitigation actions which may increase the coastal 
        resilience of their community. This tool has been used with 13 
        communities to help identify coastal resilience issues and 
        priorities.

   Based on the self-assessment results, a portfolio of 
        community projects was solicited and funded to address local 
        resilience priorities. For example, Port Milwaukee identified a 
        need to conduct regular assessment of its waterfront 
        infrastructure. Using grant funds, the Port will upgrade the 
        capacity of its harbor survey boat to allow staff engineers to 
        conduct a thorough infrastructure inspection to assess 
        vulnerabilities to coastal hazards and identify strategic 
        mitigation measures. The Port will leverage the Harbor 
        Infrastructure matrix to aid in this project.

    Lake Superior Coastal Hazards Community of Practice (COP) is a NOAA 
Project of Special Merit to the WCMP. This project group formed out of 
an expressed interest in the mapping and policy communities of northern 
Wisconsin to more effectively organize people, resources, information 
and data to aid in the mitigation and response to coastal hazards 
events.
    The initial specific hazard issue to be addressed in this project 
is culvert mapping, which is important to accurately understand flood 
hazard risk but is at present performed piecemeal by various entities 
in Wisconsin's Lake Superior watershed. This uncoordinated approach has 
led to duplication of effort and discrepancies between culvert 
inventories and associated hydrologic models, problems which can hinder 
planning and response to extreme coastal flooding events. The project 
will coordinate strategic efforts to: a) reduce redundancy; b) 
formalize data and communication channels amongst members and; c) 
provide opportunities for technical assistance to local communities.
    Project goals include:

   Formally organize the structure for a self-sustaining 
        Coastal Hazards Community of Practice that provides technical 
        assistance and guidelines to local Wisconsin communities.

   Utilize COP members mapping expertise to collectively 
        improve flood risk data, mapping and models which can be used 
        to demonstrate the value of the COP by providing technical 
        assistance to local communities and influencing subsequent 
        administrative policies and guidelines through the case study 
        on culvert mapping.

   Create and manage a cloud-based collaborative support 
        environment (CSE) that promotes the best available data and 
        improves communication among COP members.

   Develop a Hazard Action Plan that outlines best practices 
        for information sharing that can be quickly implemented during 
        a future hazard event.
Port and harbor planning
    The Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and 
Premiers unites the chief executives from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 
Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec and Wisconsin. 
This group has created the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force and called 
for the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River maritime transportation system 
(MTS) to be authorized, managed and funded as a single system. The MTS 
includes more than 100 commercial ports spread across eight states and 
two provinces, more than 40 provincial and interstate highways, and 
nearly 30 rail lines link the 15 major ports of the MTS and 50 regional 
ports with consumers, products and industries all over North America. 
These ports serve as a critical connection between the Atlantic Ocean 
and the Ohio, Illinois and Mississippi River transportation systems, 
and integrate the region with global supply chains. The MTS supports a 
$6 trillion regional economy, more than 220,000 jobs and $30 billion in 
business revenue each year. Yet each year, the aging system and its 
ability to sustain this activity continues to decline.
    The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Governors & Premiers supports 
implementation of the Strategy for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River 
Maritime Transportation System, which was developed in 2016. The 
strategy's goals are to double maritime trade, shrink the environmental 
impact of our transportation network, and support the region's 
industrial core. The strategy recommends actions to maintain and expand 
the maritime transportation system and established a Regional Maritime 
Entity to coordinate state and provincial actions.
Great Lakes Marinas
    Developing a Coastal Storm Preparedness, Adaptation, and Response 
Plan for Great Lakes Marinas (NOAA Coastal Storms Grant): This project 
was to develop a regionalized coastal storms preparedness, adaptation, 
and response plan for marinas in the Great Lakes. This tool is being 
developed to guide marinas in implementing long-term hazard mitigation, 
and to provide them with the resources and planning mechanisms 
necessary to respond properly to a coastal storm event.
    Advancing Stormwater Management at Marinas in the Great Lakes 
(Great Lakes Protection Fund Grant): Green infrastructure (GI) is an 
approach to stormwater management that can result in substantial 
environmental benefits including improved water quality and greater 
resilience to climate change impacts such as flooding from storm 
events. This project will: 1) assemble a set of educational resources 
geared to stormwater management at marinas including development of a 
decision support tool to identify appropriate marina GI practices; 2) 
support the marinas to design and implement GI practices at three Great 
Lakes marinas; 3) monitor the effects of the GI practice on water 
quality.
    The Great Lakes Clean Marina Network is a group of Great Lakes 
marina stakeholders and state clean marina programs. Network members 
collaboratively work with technical experts and outreach professionals 
to promote clean and resilient marinas in the Great Lakes. The 
Wisconsin Clean Marina Program started by the WCMP provides guidance, 
training and education that help marina and boatyard operators and 
owners improve their management practices, promote environmental 
stewardship and resiliency, and educate recreational boaters. Most 
coastal states and territories have a clean marina program.
Coastal Tourism
    Coastal tourism continues to be a vibrant industry for many coastal 
communities. Coastal tourism provides a significant impact to local and 
regional economies and supports local businesses and employment. 
Coastal tourism is heavily reliant on a healthy community waterfront, 
clean water and public access.
    There are numerous examples of successful coastal tourism 
initiatives and partnerships across the Nation. In Wisconsin, 
partnerships between the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, 
Wisconsin Department of Tourism, Wisconsin Harbor Towns Association and 
the Lake Superior Scenic Byway have created opportunities to strengthen 
coastal tourism in innovative, meaningful and impactful ways. This not 
only reaches to the state's remote and rural areas but includes our 
urban coastal working waterfronts.
    In Wisconsin, the value and connection between tourism and the 
state's natural resources is readily apparent. Because of this, 
Governor's Evers has included in the current state budget the creation 
of the Office of Outdoor Recreation within the Department of Tourism.
Public access & social justice
    Living within extensively built environments is a situation that 
may limit the opportunity and exposure to outdoor recreational 
experiences for people. In Milwaukee, for example, the Wisconsin 
Coastal Management Program has partnered with the City, County, the 
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and numerous nonprofits to 
provide for and enhance the experience for that area's residences and 
visitors. The Menomonee River in the heart of Milwaukee was a forgotten 
place for generations. Just below the bluffs of working-class 
neighborhoods, the river was blocked by railroads, highways, and high 
sheet pile walls along factory property lines, with no public access to 
the thousands of residents who lived within walking distance to it. 
Through WCMP's support on several projects along the Menomonee River, 
public access has been opened, sheet pile walls have been replaced by 
natural riverbanks with paths to the river's edge, canoe launches and 
fishing piers have been built, and the river is now visited by anglers, 
families, and classes of children. Corey Zetts, Executive Director of 
the Menomonee Valley Partners told me ``It's shocking today to see the 
photos of the channelized, inaccessible waterway just 20 years ago. 
Today, along this same stretch of the Menomonee, you can see fish, 
herons, and a diverse cross section of the Milwaukee community walking, 
fishing, or just taking in the view. Through WCMP's investments, people 
now enjoyed the public space along the river, vibrant stretches of 
riverfront which were unavailable to previous generations.''
    These partnerships and the investments from the WCMP have provided 
the connection and experience the Great Lakes, their shores and 
tributaries with trails, boat launches and fishing piers. These 
amenities that enhance the quality of life and allows for that personal 
experience with our Great Lakes resources, fosters and creates a 
stewardship ethic that will preserve them.
LiDAR & Geospatial Data Sharing (NOAA's Digital Coast)
    Water resources are an important topic to the citizens of Wisconsin 
whether one is talking about fishing, using tap water from your own 
well or municipal water system, or swimming at one of the Great Lakes' 
many beaches. Federal, state and local land and water managers all use 
geographic information systems (GIS) to inventory, analyze and make 
maps showing the distribution, quality, quantity and environmental 
conditions that contribute to good water quality. By combining factors 
such as soils, vegetation, wetlands and streams, wells, agricultural 
activity, underground storage tanks, pipelines, and where people live, 
these managers can analyze existing problem areas, such as contaminated 
wells, algal blooms or model potential wastewater discharge impacts of 
new construction. In many cases, they can identify potential remedial 
solutions to existing problems or point to smarter alternatives before 
construction begins.
Promote water industry technology
    Combining research and technology and targeting growing water 
technology businesses is critical to solving environmental health and 
economic challenges in the Nation's coastal communities. Water 
technology can provide an opportunity to build and sustain coastal 
economies along the Nation's waterfronts. An example to draw from is 
the Water Council in Milwaukee, WI whose objective is to assist in 
assembling industry and academic R&D collaboratives.
Conclusion
    The economic and environmental well-being of all our nations 
waterfronts benefit us all and the shared stewardship is a 
responsibility we should accept.
    Intergovernmental (local, state, tribal and federal) collaboration 
and cooperation is necessary to be able to revitalize and enhance our 
working waterfronts and build local capacity. Coordination allows for 
sharing of expertise and resources to realize the most successful 
impact.

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    I would be willing to pass if you wanted to--okay.
    Thank you to all four of you for your testimony. And I 
wanted to start with a question for our Wisconsin witnesses.
    Many communities in Wisconsin plus across the country, 
especially in the Mississippi and Great Lakes basins, have 
faced very severe flooding challenges this year. And that is 
really compounding the flooding impacts that we have had over 
the last several years. It also has strained our local response 
capacity.
    I am interested in hearing what you see as the greatest 
needs in terms of helping communities become more resilient and 
what solutions you have seen that have worked particularly well 
for communities and how we can build upon those successes to 
provide voluntary tools for communities to better face the 
flooding and other challenges.
    And, Mr. Mayor, I will start with you.
    Mr. Genrich. Thank you, Senator.
    Yes. So we are at sort of the early stages of getting our 
arms around this issue. As I mentioned, we pulled together a 
team of flood experts from around the State. Mr. Friis, being 
one of them, came up to Green Bay with a number of his 
colleagues who have a great deal of expertise in this area and 
really just engaged in a brainstorming session about what the 
next steps might look like. So for us, it is really sort of 
assessing what our risks are and then engaging in a planning 
process, identifying the best solutions for those risks and how 
to implement them. I think it is going to be some combination 
of green infrastructure elements, as well as traditional gray 
infrastructure to better support our storm water management 
system.
    I mentioned in my testimony that this is not something that 
can be handled by one municipality. It really needs to be a 
watershed effort. So very interested in collaborating with our 
surrounding municipalities, working with NEW Water, which is 
our regional wastewater utility in the area. They have been 
doing some great work along these lines. So Federal programs 
that sort of incentivize that kind of collaboration I think 
would be really helpful.
    I think there are some existing programs that have also 
been beneficial to a number of communities who are dealing with 
some of these challenges. The Great Lakes Restoration 
Initiative obviously is something that has been widely 
supported, and we have seen the benefits of that in the region 
and all across the State of Wisconsin.
    There is also the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant 
Program, the Army Corps of Engineers Silver Jackets, and the 
NOAA Coastal Resilience Grant Program that I think could meet 
some of our needs if we are prepared to take advantage of some 
of those programs. Obviously, very interested in seeing your 
legislation advance. Coastal resiliency is a huge priority of 
mine, of the city's in general, and I think the time is right 
for us to act.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Just before I turn to Mr. Friis, is there an obvious way 
for you to look for best practices from other communities, or 
is that something that you think the Federal Government could 
do a better job of?
    Mr. Genrich. So as a part of that group, Julie Nordak form 
UWC Grant participated, and she pulled together a number of 
similarly situated communities that we might be able to look 
to. The one in the State would certainly be MMSD, Milwaukee's 
Metropolitan Sewerage District. They are really kind of a path-
breaking organization, and I think a lot of communities are 
looking to them around the country. Toledo is actually another 
city, another Great Lake city, that is similarly situated to 
the City of Green Bay. Dubuque was another example. So 
certainly models out there.
    But to be frank, we do need the resources that the Federal 
Government can bring to bear on the solution. Then we can 
certainly look to what other communities are doing and move 
forward.
    Senator Baldwin. Very good.
    Mr. Friis, I only have a few seconds left, but if you want 
to take a kick at this. And then we will do a second round and 
I will ask a follow-up.
    Mr. Friis. Quickly I could say one of the key parts is data 
collection as well, understanding what the changing regimes are 
for storms, how the landscapists can accommodate those, and 
definitely how you can fit into that system both the green and 
the gray infrastructure to work with that, things like 
information that we can capture through places like the Digital 
Coast.
    Senator Baldwin. Senator Scott.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Scott. So I come from Florida. We got a lot of 
coast, as you know. It is a big economic driver for our State. 
We had 126 million tourists last year.
    So thinking about what we are doing and thinking about what 
you are doing in some of the cities where you are not on the 
coast, what can Congress do that would help jump start small 
businesses investing and making sure something like Pueblo 
happens? To all of you.
    Ms. Clark. From the Pueblo, Colorado experience, it was 
invaluable to have regional offices like for EDA in Denver that 
have staff that are willing to help educate the local level how 
to apply for the grant, you know, what the driving forces for 
funding are, and then making sure that we finish the 
application properly and get it in. We received EDA funding for 
our project twice.
    Dr. Graham. I would jump in that Mississippi in contrast 
does not have a large coast, and we use that actually to our 
advantage. So we could take the leveraging power that we have 
from some key Federal agencies that primarily are located out 
at Stennis Space Center but make up this Federal ocean 
community, which has a very high density of ocean scientists. 
And we can leverage that using the state's resources. They have 
been very key at resourcing what we need to build up this new 
technology economy.
    But then you also need--if you are going to attract the 
smaller businesses, you have got to give them the innovation 
spaces. So what we are doing is now linking innovation spaces 
across the coast as well. And then hopefully we will take some 
of these resources that we have had from BP's settlement and 
other resources that have come to the state and try to develop 
some capitalization fund to try to attract small business.
    So for us it has been a very hand-in-hand partnership-
oriented approach where it ranges from the Federal Government 
all the way to the private sector.
    Senator Scott. Mayor.
    Mr. Genrich. Yes. I would just identify a couple of 
successful partnerships in Green Bay. So as part of that group, 
Julia Noordyk from UW Sea Grant participated in the EPA's 
Brownfields program which has been really helpful to us. We 
have, obviously, had a working waterfront for a very long time. 
We want it to continue to work. One of the problems, though, in 
the past is that there was a lot of contamination associated 
with some of those uses along the waterfront. So the EPA's 
Brownfields program has been hugely helpful to us in being able 
to redevelop and continue to have an activated waterfront, and 
make sure that those contaminants are being removed.
    Another thing that I touched on in my testimony is our hope 
to relocate some coal piles, which are on the waterfront 
currently. So hoping to tap into some Federal Department of 
Transportation dollars, some State Department of Transportation 
dollars to make that relocation possible and then also sort of 
upgrade our port capabilities so that the City of Green Bay 
does have a 21st century commercial port that can compete with 
other communities.
    Senator Scott. Mr. Friis.
    Mr. Friis. I think ensuring appropriate and consistent 
cooperation among the Federal agencies would be great. An 
example would be working together with the Army Corps of 
Engineers to see that your beaches are well taken care of 
through the process of navigational dredging that you might see 
within the state.
    Senator Scott. Have the Federal agencies from a regulatory 
standpoint been easy, hard, helpful, a pain in the rear?
    Mr. Friis. I think everybody to a person on an individual 
level was very eager to cooperate because collectively we are 
working on the same issues.
    Ms. Clark. To follow up on how it is to work with some of 
these agencies, we recently worked with the Denver regional EDA 
office, and I have to give compliments to that staff. I 
myself--this was my first Federal application, and we did not 
have a clear understanding of how all the pieces and parts fit 
together. There are many drafts before you get to the final 
application and submit your information for a potential 
funding. They did a stand-up job, and I would look to the 
Denver office and ask them how do they get that kind of staff 
there for local people to get in contact with.
    Senator Scott. Anybody else?
    Dr. Graham. As you know, working in the maritime world has 
a different set of complexities than working in the freshwater 
world. And the permitting process for some of the ventures that 
you are entering into probably could be a little more 
streamlined in the maritime world.
    Senator Scott. Senator Baldwin.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Scott.
    You have heard the buzzes. That means we have a vote on the 
floor. It is almost at its end. So with our witnesses' 
forbearance, I am going to call the subcommittee into a recess. 
I am going to run to the floor and cast a vote. I will run as 
fast as I can back, and I do have a couple more rounds of 
questions.
    So the Subcommittee is officially in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you to our witnesses for your 
patience. I got in two of the three votes, and I think we have 
some time to wrap up before I have to run back for the final 
vote.
    So the Subcommittee will come back to order.
    Mr. Friis, I am going to start with you but open this up to 
other panelists.
    One of the observations in your testimony caught my eye. 
You wrote that our communities cannot keep up with the demand 
on their coastal waterfronts from locals, tourists, and 
commercial activities without State and Federal assistance.
    In your leadership at the state and national level, you 
have developed and overseen a wide range of strategies to 
assist local communities address their waterfront challenges. 
And I am interested to hear your perspective on this and would 
open it up, as I said, to other witnesses as well. When 
communities seek to revitalize, what assistance do they tend to 
need the most, and what assistance has made them most 
successful in implementing their revitalization visions?
    Mr. Friis. I think one of the clearest examples might be in 
the Menomonee Valley in Milwaukee. I think at one time it was 
called America's largest Brownfield. And, Senator, you probably 
saw it before the redevelopment. It was really a wasteland 
where nobody really wanted to go, and it cut off part of the 
community from the rest of the city and really secluded them 
from opportunities for experiences and jobs.
    So what we saw there was the locals coming together much 
like along the Arkansas River, whereas the Menomonee Valley 
Partners was a group that included folks from the Milwaukee 
Metropolitan Sewerage District, the 16th Street Community 
Health Care Center, the city and the county coming together to 
look at that and say how are we going to address this. And one 
of the first projects was working together with them with a 
Coastal Management Grant on the sustainable design criteria, so 
creating an expectation of what people wanted, and then when it 
was built, we wanted to see some resiliency there. We wanted to 
see family-supporting jobs. We wanted to see public open space. 
We wanted to see ecosystem services incorporated with that 
green infrastructure. So there is a storm water park that when 
it is not flooded, it is a place that you can play Frisbee. 
There are bike trails where people can bike to work. There are 
riverwalks where people can recreate and kids can go down and 
learn about micro-invertebrates.
    So once they developed a vision, they were able to 
implement it--I think their energy invigorated all of us. We 
funded some of the initial work. Our Brownfields program within 
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources was there. Our 
then-Wisconsin Department of Commerce. We worked with the EPA. 
I think it was EPA award winning projects that went on in 
there. So it was really sort of building that synergy, that 
energy, and keeping it going, sustaining. Sometimes it is 
technical assistance. Sometimes it is funding. Sometimes it is 
making those connections and coordination. That is why the 
Menomonee Valley has been such a great example for us in terms 
of both economic and environmental redevelopment.
    Senator Baldwin. I invite the other panelists to weigh in 
on this also. Ms. Clark?
    Ms. Clark. I think as I went over before, the process 
really was getting buy-in from our own community that we needed 
to change the way we looked. We were primarily a steel town, 
manufacturing town. We do not have the beautiful view of the 
Rocky Mountains like Denver and Colorado Springs. So we have 
mountains in the distance. We are primarily an arid type 
landscape and environment. So taking our largest natural 
resource, the Arkansas River, and deciding to make that what we 
are known for was really the turning point.
    Funding comes along as it comes along. And I think 
cooperation between communities that have an existing success 
story--ours was a relationship with San Antonio. That city 
opened its arms to our community and helped us learn best 
practice. Trial and error on their part became information for 
us to try to change what our community could do.
    Dr. Graham. So I think for us, we need diversification in 
our economy. And we are looking at sort of technology, 
engineering fields to do that.
    The problem that we face with that is we have got the draw. 
We have got the community buy-in. We have got the Federal 
agencies providing sort of this gravity. Then when we have the 
private sector come and start looking around, their questions 
are more about workforce. Where are they going to get their 
workforce from. So we have to close that loop. It is almost a 
chicken and the egg kind of thing, but we have to close that 
loop with workforce development training, show that there is a 
body of people who are willing to fill these jobs in the 
region. And then you have that engine going.
    Mr. Genrich. Well, I would just say that the City of Green 
Bay's experience has been really positive with Mr. Friis and 
his organization. And so I think it would be of great benefit 
to push more resources down to folks like Mike and others 
around the country.
    One recent example is I mentioned Bay Beach being a 
swimmable beach here with their next summer season. And there 
are going to be challenges associated with that. You mentioned 
the algal blooms that have plagued the bay. That is not going 
anywhere anytime soon, but I think it is a helpful tension to 
push forward so that when people are asking why we cannot use 
our waterways, why we cannot enjoy this natural resource, we 
have an answer and we have a plan to address those water 
quality issues.
    But Mike's office has been really great to work with and 
has so much experience in other coastal communities around the 
state, that enabling them to do more work I think would be 
really helpful.
    Senator Baldwin. That is great.
    So the last question was on revitalization. Sometimes you 
cannot separate them, but I want to kind of take this last 
question more focused on resiliency. And a number of you have 
talked about the need to cooperate with the whole region, the 
whole watershed.
    Mayor, in your testimony, you discussed the challenges that 
face communities that are at the very bottom of the watersheds, 
which receive runoff and water coming from further upstream. 
And I know this is a challenge for many places, especially 
towns and cities further down very large rivers. Those places 
are not only seeing flash floods from precipitation that falls 
near them but also increasingly severe volumes of water from 
heavy rainfall that are quite far upstream.
    So is there need for additional tools to support voluntary 
collaboration on the resiliency at the whole watershed level? 
And what watershed level actions can help reduce downstream 
costs? Whoever wants to jump in first. Should I call on you, 
Dr. Graham?
    Dr. Graham. We have probably the extreme of the watershed 
influencing us with 41 states touching the Mississippi River 
drainage basin. And so that at its core is a national issue. I 
mean, that is so large that it is not really necessarily just 
voluntary. I think we have to legislate some of the changes 
that are needed up in the watershed so that the Gulf, from our 
perspective, stays healthy and resilient. We believe that 
resilient people come from resilient ecosystems, and it is even 
bigger than just every now and then rainfall. The Mississippi 
River is so big, it is capturing climate as well. And that is a 
very huge deal for us, that the increased precipitation up over 
the northern tiers of the river catchment is going to affect us 
long term. I think we are seeing that now.
    Senator Baldwin. Mr. Friis, if I can call on you on that 
question. I think you referenced earlier the work that the 
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is doing upstream as 
an example. But any further expansion you want to give on this 
topic?
    Mr. Friis. Sure. So I think I was referring to the 
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District's Green Seams Program 
where they were dealing with a water quantity issue within 
their service area. Because they have combined sewers within 
that area, they are looking at how they can deal with that 
quantity, at the same time accomplishing a water quality 
benefit. So they were looking at identifying properties that 
may have had wetlands, hydrics soils, and how they could work 
with those landowners on appropriately managing that, maybe 
even purchase them by the district and do restoration 
activities.
    We are looking at sort of taking the green infrastructure 
concept on a watershed level. We are looking at other places in 
the state like that. Iron County, which in 2016, 2018 received 
some torrential rainfalls that created a great deal of damage 
to the public and private infrastructure up there. We are 
looking at working with the county, the municipalities, the 
Wisconsin Wetlands Association on helping identify wetlands and 
pointing towards their functional values and how maintaining 
those wetlands, enhancing their storm water retention values 
could help prevent another washing out of harbors like they saw 
in Saxon Harbor.
    Senator Baldwin. Ms. Clark of Mayor Genrich, do you wish 
to----
    Mr. Genrich. Sure. Yes, just a quick comment on the 
Mississippi River watershed. I was on an inland lake, inland 
flowage in Birchwood, Wisconsin this past weekend, whose waters 
end up in the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, it is just massive, the 
size of the watershed. But from our perspective, as I 
mentioned, a multi-jurisdictional operation is going to be 
really important for us. So if there is a way to incentivize 
that cooperation, I think that would be helpful and to somehow 
reduce development pressure in some of these municipalities 
that are upstream of us so that that land stays out of 
development, stays natural, and is able to keep more nutrients 
and more water on the land above us.
    Senator Baldwin. Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. This is a little out of my area, considering 
what I do. But I think that in Colorado and especially Pueblo, 
we do have organizations that look out for our interests in the 
watershed area because we have been impacted as a city by 
cities above us, by the Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River. 
I would be happy to provide more detailed information for the 
record.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    I want to thank our four witnesses again especially for 
your forbearance in terms of a brief recess.
    To the majority staff, I thought there is something that I 
am supposed to recite before I gavel the Committee in terms of 
how many days Members have to submit--okay.
    The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. We ask 
you to reply promptly to any follow-up questions that the 
Committee chooses to send.
    Again, thank you.
    And the Subcommittee is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                           Mayor Eric Genrich
    Question 1. What challenges have you encountered by working on 
watershed issues at the municipal level? Would resiliency efforts at 
the watershed level help solve these problems? What types of assistance 
for watershed resiliency efforts would be most helpful to communities 
like yours?
    Answer. Our biggest challenge is in defining issues for flooding in 
the watershed, and then identifying solutions, including funding. At 
this point, the City will need to purchase some structures, install 
grey infrastructure, and create green solutions to manage flooding.
    We believe, very strongly, that resiliency efforts in the city 
would help solve some of the problems. We've been awarded a grant 
(Great Lakes Champions Mini Grant) enabling us to audit our ordinances 
to ensure that they support the implementation of green infrastructure. 
We will also seek other grant funding to hire a resiliency coordinator 
to manage these efforts. However, we'll need to find more permanent 
sources of funding.
    We welcome expertise from professionals working in the field of 
resiliency, water quality, storm water management, environmentally 
responsible land use, and the like. We'll benefit by learning from 
other communities engaged in this work. The Great Lakes Champions grant 
comes with mentors, who are professionals in their fields, as well as 
monthly meetings with partner communities. Both of these will be highly 
impactful for the City of Green Bay. We will also work with up-river 
communities in defining problems and identifying solutions.

    Question 2. What experiences have your communities had with natural 
or ``green'' infrastructure? What have been the strengths of these 
approaches? What are barriers to communities, like yours, using these 
approaches more frequently?
    Answer. We have implemented some green infrastructure in the City, 
especially in new construction. These approaches keep water in place, 
preventing run-off toward the Fox River (part of the Fox River Basin 
and the Lake Michigan). The strength of the green infrastructure 
approach is to, for example, bring natural elements to renovation 
projects, particularly those in dense urban areas.
    With the Great Lakes Champions grant, we will learn which barriers 
we may have that prevent more wide-spread implementation of green 
infrastructure. Ultimately, like any other infrastructure, adequate 
funding for maintenance and installation will produce more long-lasting 
outcomes.
    Lack of community and business approval of green infrastructure, 
along with a steady funding source, are barriers to wide-spread 
implementation.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                            Dr. Monty Graham
    Question 1. What challenges have you encountered by working on 
watershed issues at the municipal level? Would resiliency efforts at 
the watershed level help solve these problems? What types of assistance 
for watershed resiliency efforts would be most helpful to communities 
like yours?
    Answer. There are a number of water quality issues that arise from 
the watershed scale, yet manifest impact at local/municipal scales. 
These include recent impacts from flooding on the Mississippi River and 
subsequent opening of the Bonney Carre Spillway resulting in impacts 
covered in my written testimony. The greatest challenge in developing 
watershed solutions is the upscaling from municipal authorities to 
Federal action. These issues are inherently cross-jurisdictional at all 
levels of government, which creates further challenge to scoping a 
solution. In short, communities along the Mississippi coast rely on 
economic, geographic, health, etc. commonalities to forge alliances 
(e.g., coastal Mississippi's `OneCoast' initiative). However, impacts 
are not always uniform across the coast or between coastal communities.
    These alliances are, by definition, loose coalitions. The best way 
to enhance resilience planning across a region bound by common goals 
and vulnerable to common threats would be to establish regional 
authorities (as see in the transportation sector) which could respond 
to or influence common resilience needs and planning under state or 
Federal authorization. Federal assistance aimed at regional authorities 
would have tremendous impact for coastal communities.

    Question 2. What experiences have your communities had with natural 
or ``green'' infrastructure? What have been the strengths of these 
approaches? What are barriers to communities, like yours, using these 
approaches more frequently?
    Answer. ``Green'' infrastructure is still a young term. However, 
coastal Mississippi like other coastal regions prone to flooding and 
storm events, has made strong utilization of the natural landscape 
versus the built landscape to improve resilience.
    The primarily green infrastructure projects have been the 
implementation of living shorelines in our coastal communities. 
Although, in practice, Mississippi has relatively small living 
shoreline area, the planning and development of private waterfront 
acreage in living (versus hardened or built) shoreline is increasing. 
Conversations between private waterfront landowners and insurance 
industry are taking root.
    Communities have become more interested in how they may maintain 
natural and beneficial use of an area through the use of green 
infrastructure because it is a focus of the Community Rating System (an 
incentive program under the National Flood Insurance Program). If they 
can capture points for open space and/or preservation of natural and 
beneficial use, then they can ultimately lower their flood insurance 
premiums.
    The direct benefits and strengths of green infrastructure along our 
coastal communities can be seen in erosion protection and 
stabilization, habitat restoration, buffers against inundating storm 
events, generation of aesthetic value, and lowered comparative cost to 
built infrastructure. Barriers to utilization of green infrastructure 
include permitting process, evaluation of effectiveness, incentives for 
implementation, relatively few examples of success, contractor 
knowledge for installation, and lack of public education for benefit.

    Question 3. Mississippi, like Wisconsin, has had a remarkable 
amount of flooding this year that have devastated our communities. What 
resources are needed to allow Mississippi to be better prepared for 
future flooding events? What scale is resiliency planning and response 
capacity needed in order to reduce the impacts of extreme events and 
annual flooding cycles? Are these resourced needed at the local, 
watershed, state, Mississippi-basin, or other level? What resources are 
most important to allow communities to do this necessary work within 
the next 5-10 years?
    Answer. Mississippi must have a `seat at the table' for flood 
control planning, infrastructure development, response planning, a 
decision to action related to flood control measures that might harm 
the state and its coastal waters. There remain questions about the 
decision process over opening Bonney Carre Spillway, but not opening 
the Morganza spillway. This will be even more critical as Mississippi 
River sediment diversions are opened to allow broader distribution of 
freshwater into coastal waters near Mississippi. As presented in my 
written testimony, we simply cannot exist in a constant state of 
disaster recovery and expect the future of coastal economy and human 
well-being to be bright. Having a longitudinal Mississippi-basin 
resilience and sustainability plan with Federal funding in place to 
develop and implement multi-jurisdictional planning/response activities 
would be a huge advancement. The governors of the five Gulf states 
created the Gulf of Mexico Alliance to do just this on priority issues 
common to all. A similar Mississippi River Basin Alliance linking 
state, Federal and non-governmental entities on common issues around 
water management could have similar impact.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                        Michael (Mike) J. Friis
    Question 1. What challenges have you encountered by working on 
watershed issues at the municipal level? Would resiliency efforts at 
the watershed level help solve these problems? What types of assistance 
for watershed resiliency efforts would be most helpful to communities 
like yours?
    Answer. Our biggest challenge is in defining issues for flooding in 
the watershed, and then identifying solutions, including funding. At 
this point, the City will need to purchase some structures, install 
grey infrastructure, and create green solutions to manage flooding.
    We believe, very strongly, that resiliency efforts in the city 
would help solve some of the problems. We've been awarded a grant 
(Great Lakes Champions Mini Grant) enabling us to audit our ordinances 
to ensure that they support the implementation of green infrastructure. 
We will also seek other grant funding to hire a resiliency coordinator 
to manage these efforts. However, we'll need to find more permanent 
sources of funding.
    We welcome expertise from professionals working in the field of 
resiliency, water quality, storm water management, environmentally 
responsible land use, and the like. We'll benefit by learning from 
other communities engaged in this work. The Great Lakes Champions grant 
comes with mentors, who are professionals in their fields, as well as 
monthly meetings with partner communities. Both of these will be highly 
impactful for the City of Green Bay. We will also work with up-river 
communities in defining problems and identifying solutions.

    Question 2. What experiences have your communities had with natural 
or ``green'' infrastructure? What have been the strengths of these 
approaches? What are barriers to communities, like yours, using these 
approaches more frequently?
    Answer. We have implemented some green infrastructure in the City, 
especially in new construction. These approaches keep water in place, 
preventing run-off toward the Fox River (part of the Fox River Basin 
and the Lake Michigan). The strength of the green infrastructure 
approach is to, for example, bring natural elements to renovation 
projects, particularly those in dense urban areas.
    With the Great Lakes Champions grant, we will learn which barriers 
we may have that prevent more wide-spread implementation of green 
infrastructure. Ultimately, like any other infrastructure, adequate 
funding for maintenance and installation will produce more long-lasting 
outcomes.
    Lack of community and business approval of green infrastructure, 
along with a steady funding source, are barriers to wide-spread 
implementation.

                                  [all]