[Senate Report 115-348]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 638
                                                       
115th Congress }                                              { Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session    }                                              { 115-348
_______________________________________________________________________


     WATERFRONT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION AND RESILIENCY ACT OF 2018

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   ON

                                S. 3265

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


               November 13, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
               
               
                               __________
               
               
                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                
89-010                     WASHINGTON: 2018               
               
               
               
               
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
       
                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                     
                             SECOND SESSON

                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
                   
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,                MARGARET WOOD HASSAN,
  West Virginia                        New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana               JON TESTER, Montana

                       Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                 Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                    Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
           Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
           
           

                                                       Calendar No. 638
115th Congress }                                            { Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session    }                                            { 115-348

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

 
     WATERFRONT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION AND RESILIENCY ACT OF 2018

                                _______
                                

               November 13, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Thune, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 3265]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 3265) to require the Secretary 
of Commerce to undertake certain activities to support 
waterfront community revitalization and resiliency, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of S. 3265, the Waterfront Community 
Revitalization and Resiliency Act of 2018, is to support 
waterfront community revitalization and resiliency.

                          Background and Needs

    Many cities and towns across the United States are bordered 
by lakes, rivers, or ocean. These locations have historically 
provided ready access to water, fishing, transportation, and 
trade. However, many waterfront communities were built around 
their water resources many years ago and are now working to 
reposition and overcome issues such as limited public access, 
poor alignment with modern development, flooding, and erosion.
    As waterfront populations have increased, more development 
has been vulnerable to natural hazards like flooding and 
erosion. Climate change is further increasing the risk.\1\ The 
2017 Atlantic hurricane season highlighted many of these 
vulnerabilities, with widespread damage and many casualties 
from Hurricanes Irma, Harvey, and Maria. For instance, the 
population of Jacksonville, Florida, alone increased by nearly 
200,000 between 2007 and 2017.\2\ With Hurricane Irma, 
Jacksonville experienced serious flooding along the St. Johns 
River, and the entire watershed reached its highest historic 
water levels.\3\ The hurricane disrupted transportation 
networks throughout all of Florida and shut down roads and 
bridges for many days, stranding citizens and closing 
businesses.\4\ Flooding from Hurricane Irma came within inches 
of closing Interstate 75 near Jacksonville and did shut U.S. 27 
in nearby High Springs, Florida. Similar situations occurred in 
Texas and Louisiana during Hurricane Harvey, where more than 
6.7 million people in a 29,000 square mile area (the size of 
West Virginia) received at least 20 inches of rain over 7 days 
across multiple watersheds, causing catastrophic flooding and 
disruption.\5\
    In addition to flooding, erosion and sea level rise can be 
a major challenge for waterfront communities. For example, 86 
percent of Alaskan native villages in northern Alaska are being 
impacted by coastal erosion.\6\ In the Gulf Coast, Louisiana 
has lost more than 2,000 square miles of land to subsidence and 
erosion between 1932 and 2016.\7\ Proactive efforts can make 
waterfront communities more resilient to challenges like 
storms, floods, and fluctuating water levels so that 
communities are better equipped to respond to hazards and 
return to normal more quickly.
    In addition to adapting to economic shifts, waterfront 
communities are facing pressures to meet increasing demands on 
water resources. For example, the Great Lakes are an important 
water resource for farming and drinking water, providing 
drinking water for 40 million people. Municipalities, 
agriculture, and industry use a total of 56 billion gallons of 
water per day from the Great Lakes.\8\
    Some resilience projects can have multiple benefits. For 
example, restoring oyster reefs buffers coasts from waves, 
which reduces erosion and absorbs impact during storms and can 
also improve water quality and provide habitat and food to 
coastal species.\9\ Projects that incorporate both traditional 
and natural infrastructure may better protect waterfront 
communities, provide multiple benefits, and be more cost-
effective than projects using traditional approaches alone.\10\
    Waterfront planning and projects require communities to 
navigate intergovernmental hurdles, work across constituent 
groups and agencies, and often secure financing. However, many 
communities lack adequate resources to implement such plans. 
The cost savings and economic benefits of implementing 
waterfront resilience plans has been estimated to be 
approximately $4.2 trillion.\11\ For example, the water clean-
up and restoration activities in the greater Detroit Metro area 
are estimated to drive a $3.7 to $7 billion increase in 
property values and long-run economic development.\12\ Lessons 
learned from such initiatives can benefit other communities 
earlier in the planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Stefan Rahmstorf (2017), Rising Hazard of Storm-Surge Flooding. 
Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/
content/early/2017/10/23/1715895114).
    \2\Ibid.
    \3\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Reviewing 
Hurricane Harvey's Catastrophic Rain and Flooding (https://
www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/reviewing-hurricane-
harveys-catastrophic-rain-and-flooding) (accessed July 25, 2018).
    \4\Government Accountability Office, Alaska Native Villages: Most 
Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal 
Assistance (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-142) (accessed July 25, 
2018).
    \5\United States Geological Survey, Louisiana's Rate of Coastal 
Wetland Loss (https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-
louisiana-s-rate-coastal-wetland-loss-continues-slow) (accessed July 
26, 2018).
    \6\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, About Our Great 
Lakes: Great Lakes Basin Facts (http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/education/
ourlakes/facts.html) (accessed July 25, 2018).
    \7\Naturally Resilient Communities, Oyster Reefs (http://
nrcsolutions.org/oyster-reefs/) (accessed July 26, 2018).
    \8\Sutton-Grier, A. E., Wowk, K., and Bamford, H. 2015. Future of 
our coasts: The potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to 
enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and 
ecosystems. Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 51, pp. 137-148 
(accessed July 26, 2018).
    \9\Austin, J. C., Anderson, S. T., Courant, P. N., & Litan, R. E. 
(2016). Place-Specific Benefits of Great Lakes Restoration: A 
Supplement to the ``Healthy Waters'' Report. Washington, DC: Brookings 
Institution.
    \10\Sutton-Grier, A. E., Wowk, K., and Bamford, H. 2015. Future of 
our coasts: The potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to 
enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and 
ecosystems. Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 51, pp. 137-148 
(accessed July 26, 2018).
    \11\Carter, N.T., Upton, H.F, and McCarthy, F.X. Coastal Flood 
Resilience: Policy, Roles, and Funds. Congressional Research Service 
Report (www.crs.gov/Reports/IF10225?/ pages/ content. aspx?PRODCODE= 
IF10225&Source =search& 0source=search) (accessed July 25, 2018).
    \12\Austin, J. C., Anderson, S. T., Courant, P. N., & Litan, R. E. 
(2016). Place-Specific Benefits of Great Lakes Restoration: A 
Supplement to the ``Healthy Waters'' Report. Washington, DC: Brookings 
Institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Summary of Provisions

    S. 3265, the Waterfront Community Revitalization and 
Resiliency Act of 2018, would do the following:
   Allow the Secretary of Commerce to designate 
resilient waterfront communities.
   Allow the Secretary of Commerce to establish 
networks of resilient communities to foster information 
sharing.

                          Legislative History

    S. 3265 was introduced by Senator Baldwin on July 25, 2018, 
and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate. On August 1, 2018, the Committee 
met in open Executive Session and by voice vote ordered S. 3265 
to be reported favorably without amendment.

                            Estimated Costs

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

S. 3265--Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act of 2018

    S. 3265 would require the Department of Commerce (DOC) to 
develop criteria to designate as a resilient waterfront 
community, any community that voluntarily develops plans to 
revitalize and strengthen their unique water-related economic 
and ecological resources.
    Under the bill, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration in coordination with Economic Development 
Administration (two agencies within DOC) would develop guidance 
for local waterfront communities that choose to develop a 
revitalization plan. The agencies also would evaluate plans 
submitted by communities and classify them as resilient 
waterfront communities, develop and maintain a network to 
facilitate the sharing of best practices among those 
communities, identify public and private investments that would 
further the goals of the resilient waterfront plans, and upon 
request, assist local communities with implementing the goals.
    Using information from DOC, CBO estimates that implementing 
S. 3265 would require about four additional people to develop 
and administer the program and would cost $3 million over the 
2019-2023 period; such spending would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    Enacting S. 3265 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 3265 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
    S. 3265 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Stephen Rabent. 
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       number of persons covered

    S. 3265 as reported would not create any new programs or 
impose any new regulatory requirements, and therefore would not 
subject any individuals or businesses to new regulations.

                            economic impact

    S. 3265 is not expected to have a negative impact on the 
Nation's economy.

                                privacy

    S. 3265 as reported would have no impact on the personal 
privacy of individuals.

                               paperwork

    S. 3265 would not create increases in paperwork burdens if 
enacted.

                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no 
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the 
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the 
rule.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title.

    This section would provide that the bill may be cited as 
the ``Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act of 
2018.''

Section 2. Findings.

    This section would present the findings of Congress on the 
establishment, economics, and infrastructure needs of 
waterfront communities.

Section 3. Definitions.

    This section would define the following terms: ``Indian 
tribe,'' ``resilient waterfront community,'' and ``Secretary.''

Section 4. Resilient waterfront communities designation.

    This section would allow the Secretary of Commerce to 
designate resilient waterfront communities. It would require 
the Secretary of Commerce to work with the heads of other 
Federal agencies as necessary to provide comparable services to 
waterfronts not located on the Great Lakes or ocean coasts. It 
would provide a definition of a Resilient Waterfront Community 
Plan and designate the components of that plan. It also would 
define the effective length of that plan to be 10 years.

Section 5. Resilient waterfront communities network.

    This section would require the Secretary of Commerce to 
develop a resilient waterfront communities network. It also 
would require the Secretary of Commerce to provide formal 
recognition of the designated resilient waterfront communities.

Section 6. Waterfront community revitalization activities.

    This section would allow the Secretary of Commerce to use 
existing authority to support the development of a resilient 
waterfront community plan and the implementation of strategic 
components of this plan after it has been approved by the 
Secretary. It would make eligible non-Federal partners that are 
units of local government or Indian tribes bound in part by the 
Great Lakes, the ocean, a riverfront, or an inland lake. It 
would allow technical assistance to be provided for resilient 
waterfront community plans. It would define eligible planning 
activities. It would allow assistance to aid in the 
implementation of the plan and to address strategic priorities. 
It would allow lead non-Federal partners to contract or 
collaborate with non-Federal implementation partners. It would 
require the lead non-Federal partner to ensure that assistance 
and resources are used for the purposes of any initiative 
advanced by the Secretary of Commerce for the purpose of 
promoting waterfront community revitalization. It would require 
resilient waterfront communities to provide funds toward the 
completion of implementation activities. It would allow funds 
to be provided by non-Federal resources. It is the Committee's 
intention that the Secretary of Commerce provide technical 
assistance on issues that are already within the mission set of 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 
NOAA should not encroach on other agencies' missions or acquire 
new expertise in order to implement this section.

Section 7. Interagency awareness.

    This section would require the Secretary of Commerce to 
provide a list of resilient waterfront communities to 
applicable States and the regional offices of interested 
Federal agencies. It would require the Secretary of Commerce to 
coordinate awareness of designated resilient waterfront 
communities of relevant Federal grant and loan programs that 
fund projects addressed in the resilient waterfront community 
plan.

Section 8. No new regulatory authority.

    This section would clarify that nothing in this Act may be 
construed as establishing new authority for any Federal agency.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.