PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
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.
