 My name is Matthew Sanders, I'm with the State of Louisiana's Office of Community Development. I conceived and for the past several years have led the LA Safe process in our state. I believe resilience means the adoption of a philosophy, a way of thinking. I think it's taking an array of inputs that are at hand and those that we can anticipate in the future and using those inputs to define what our development patterns are going to look like, what our society looks like in light of current and future risk that we can anticipate. LA Safe is a planning, policy development and now project effort that emanated from the National Disaster Resilience Competition. The Office of Community Development applied on behalf of the State of Louisiana to secure those dollars from the federal government and LA Safe was one of the projects that was funded therein. Once we received funding for the initiative, we, along with our partner organizations, have led the effort in a six-perish area throughout Louisiana. I think in Louisiana it has changed the conversation in how we think about flood risk in a couple of different ways. First and foremost, we understand that we have to think about flood risk holistically. It's not just surge flood risk from hurricanes, but we also have to think about riverine flood risk, flash flood risk and insofar as we can compile that information and disseminate it to the public, we have an opportunity to think about all of the consequences therein. What happens to housing stock? How do economies change when populations move away from risk to places of relatively lower risk? How do we think about transportation networks? And so we took an approach that is focused on the disaster risks inherent in Louisiana and we opened it up to a more robust conversation about a total development pattern. I think the LA Safe planning process is different than what most jurisdictions have undertaken and that as we talk about climate risk and specifically flood climate risk, most of the planning efforts to date have focused on large-scale, hard infrastructure. And while I think we understand the utility for large-scale, hard infrastructure, what we've done with LA Safe has really opened up the conversation to a more holistic planning process and more comprehensive planning process than what has been seen in the past. Well, I think LA Safe can serve as an example to other locations in two ways. One, I think it should illustrate what you can do if you have good information about current and future disaster risk so it should provide some illustration to other jurisdictions to make those investments to understand what their risks look like. And then I think it can serve as a blueprint for how that type of information can be disseminated to the public and how a holistic planning process that is community-centered can take place and be successful. So federal programs and policies have been extremely beneficial to the LA Safe effort, namely the National Disaster Resilience Competition in and of itself provided a catalyst to disaster-affected regions to really think more creatively about how they were going to approach those disaster risks now and in the future. And I think the federal government has a unique role to play in incentivizing that type of creativity at the state and local level and that really can be a driver for innovation now in the future. We have a series of 10 projects that are all in various stages of implementation. The physical projects should all be under construction early next year. And then from there, who knows? We'll see what happens.