Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                Calendar No. 508
114th Congress }					{ REPORT
 2d Session    }                  SENATE                { 114-272


                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE



                                S. 1935

                  June 8, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
                        WASHINGTON : 2016
                    one hundred fourteenth congress
                             second session

                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida
 ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
 MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
 KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
 TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
 DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
 JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  ED MARKEY, Massachusetts
 DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
 RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
 DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
 CORY GARDNER, Colorado               GARY PETERS, Michigan
                       Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                 Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                    Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
           Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                 Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel


                  June 8, 2016.--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. 1935]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 1935) to require the Secretary 
of Commerce to undertake certain activities to support 
waterfront community revitalization and resiliency, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that 
the bill (as amended) do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of S. 1935, the Waterfront Community 
Revitalization and Resiliency Act of 2015, is to support 
waterfront community revitalization and resiliency.

                          Background and Needs

    Many cities and towns across the United States border 
lakes, rivers, or the ocean. These locations have historically 
provided ready access to trade, transportation, fishing, and 
waterborne commercial activities. 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 and poor alignment with modern 
    Increasing populations put additional pressure on 
waterfront communities. For instance, the population of Tampa, 
Florida, alone has increased by 317,000 people since 2008.\1\ 
In 2012, Tropical Storm Debby dumped nearly 20 inches of rain 
on the area, and Tampa Bay's transportation network was 
disrupted by the inundation. Flooding closed roads for several 
days and disrupted traffic between downtown Tampa, MacDill Air 
Force Base, and Tampa General Hospital.\2\ Similar examples 
occurred in Oklahoma and Texas in May of 2015.\3\ Proactive 
efforts can make waterfront communities more resilient to 
challenges like storms, floods, and fluctuating water levels.
    \1\Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. Population Data for 
Tampa, 2008-2015. Available at:
population/#!/state/Florida/county/Hillsborough_County (accessed 
December 1, 2015).
    \2\Kruse, M., Cox, J.W., Hobson, W., Thompson, A., and Brassfield, 
M. Tropical Storm Debby brings heavy rain, strong winds to Tampa Bay. 
Tampa Bay Times, June 24, 2012. Available at:
tampa-bay/1237045 (accessed December 1, 2015).
    \3\Harwell, D. Catastrophic flooding hits Texas and Oklahoma. 
Available at:
11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html (accessed December 1, 2015).
    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 agriculture, and provide 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.\4\
    \4\NOAA. About Our Great Lakes: Great Lakes Basin Facts. Available 
at: (accessed December 
1, 2015).
    Waterfront communities also need to adapt to changing 
conditions that range from shoreline erosion to stresses on 
fisheries. For example, 86 percent of Alaskan native villages 
in northern Alaska are being impacted by coastal erosion.\5\
    \5\GAO. Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and 
Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance. Available at: http:// (accessed December 1, 2015).
    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.\6\ 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.\7\ Lessons 
learned from such initiatives can benefit other communities 
earlier in the planning process.
    \6\Carter, N.T., Upton, H.F, and McCarthy, F.X. Coastal Flood 
Resilience: Policy, Roles, and Funds. CRS Report. Available at:
content.aspx?PRODCODE=IF10225&Source=search&source=search (accessed 
November 30, 2015).
    \7\Austin, J. C., Anderson, S. T., Courant, P. N., & Litan, R. E. 
(2007). Healthy waters, strong economy: the benefits of restoring the 
Great Lakes ecosystem. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

                         Summary of Provisions

    S. 1935, the Waterfront Community Revitalization and 
Resiliency Act of 2015, would:

     allow the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to 
designate resilient waterfront communities; and

     allow the Secretary to establish networks of 
resilient waterfront communities to foster information sharing.

                          Legislative History

    S. 1935 was introduced by Senator Baldwin on August 4, 
2015. Senators Peters, King, and Wyden are cosponsors. On 
December 9, 2015, the Committee met in open Executive Session 
and, by a voice vote, ordered S. 1935 to be reported favorably 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

                            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 

S. 1935--Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act of 2015

    S. 1935 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.
    The Economic Development Administration (EDA) and National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are agencies 
within the DOC that work directly with local communities to 
foster economic development and provide accurate and timely 
data on the environmental risks facing local waterfront 
communities. Under the bill, NOAA in coordination with EDA 
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.
    On the basis of information from the DOC, CBO estimates 
that implementing S. 1935 would require 3 or 4 full-time 
equivalent employees at a cost of about $600,000 a year to 
develop guidelines and administer the program. Such spending 
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    Because enacting S. 1935 would not affect direct spending 
or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 
estimates that enacting the bill would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    S. 1935 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would benefit local and tribal governments designated as water 
communities. Any costs incurred by those entities, including 
matching contributions, would be incurred voluntarily.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Aurora Swanson. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                           Regulatory Impact

    Because S. 1935 does not create any new programs, the 
legislation will have no additional regulatory impact, and will 
result in no additional reporting requirements. The legislation 
will have no further effect on the number or types of 
individuals and businesses regulated, the economic impact of 
such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals, 
or the paperwork required from such individuals and businesses.

                   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 

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title.

    This section would designate the short title of the bill as 
the ``Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act of 

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 to designate 
resilient waterfront communities. It would require the 
Secretary 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 would also limit the 
effective length of that plan to 10 years.

Section 5. Resilient waterfront communities network.

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

Section 6. Waterfront community revitalization activities.

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

Section 7. Interagency awareness.

    This section would require the Secretary to provide a list 
of resilient waterfront communities to applicable States and 
the heads of national and regional offices of interested 
Federal agencies.

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.