U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT 

2016

114–272 

Calendar No. 508 

WATERFRONT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 

AND RESILIENCY ACT OF 2015 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1935 

JUNE 8, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

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 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

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 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 508 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–272 

WATERFRONT COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION AND 

RESILIENCY ACT OF 2015 

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 development. 

Increasing populations put additional pressure on waterfront 

communities. For instance, the population of Tampa, Florida, alone 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
2 

1 Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. Population Data for Tampa, 2008-2015. Available at: https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/population/#!/state/Florida/county/ 

HillsboroughlCounty (accessed December 1, 2015). 2Kruse, 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: 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/weather/tropical-storm-debby-brings-heavy-rain-strong-winds-totampa-bay/1237045 (accessed December 1, 2015). 3 Harwell, D. Catastrophic flooding hits Texas and Oklahoma. Available at: https:// 

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/catastrophic-flooding-hits-texas-and-oklahoma/2015/ 

05/25/0f86027e-02fb-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4elstory.html (accessed December 1, 2015). 4 NOAA. About Our Great Lakes: Great Lakes Basin Facts. Available at: http:// 

www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/facts.html (accessed December 1, 2015). 5GAO. Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify 

for Federal Assistance. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-142 (accessed December 1, 2015). 6 Carter, N.T., Upton, H.F, and McCarthy, F.X. Coastal Flood Resilience: Policy, Roles, and 

Funds. CRS Report. Available at: www.crs.gov/Reports/IF10225?/pages/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. 

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. 

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

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

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. 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
3 

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 Office: 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
4 

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 rule. 

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 2015.’’ 

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 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
5 

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. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING