Keep America’s Waterfronts Working Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 3, 2025
Bottom line
This bill creates new federal programs to preserve and enhance working waterfronts in coastal communities through grants, loans, and strategic planning, with a focus on climate resilience and public access.
What it actually does
The bill amends the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to establish a Task Force to identify critical needs for working waterfronts, create a competitive grant program to fund their preservation and improvement, and establish a revolving loan fund program to provide financial assistance to states for similar purposes. It aims to protect coastal access for commercial and recreational fishing, aquaculture, and other water-dependent businesses, while also addressing climate resilience.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that working waterfronts are vital economic and cultural assets for coastal communities, facing increasing threats from development pressure, climate change, and environmental degradation. This bill provides much-needed federal support to help states and local entities protect these critical areas, ensuring continued access for traditional maritime industries and fostering economic resilience.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that this bill represents an expansion of federal involvement into local land use decisions, potentially leading to federal overreach or inefficient allocation of resources. Concerns could also be raised about the cost to taxpayers, the potential for bureaucratic hurdles, or whether the programs adequately address the diverse needs of all coastal communities.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring a careful read to understand the nuances of the grant and loan programs. The estimated reading time is reasonable for a thorough review.
Section 2, inserting new Section 306B(a)
Establishment of a Working Waterfronts Task Force
This provision mandates the Secretary of Commerce to create a task force. This task force will bring together experts and representatives from various federal agencies, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to identify and prioritize the critical needs of working waterfronts across coastal states. It will also outline options to address these needs, including adaptation and mitigation strategies for environmental changes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated task force is essential to comprehensively understand the complex challenges facing working waterfronts, from economic pressures to climate change impacts. This coordinated federal approach ensures that solutions are well-informed and tailored to specific regional needs.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of a task force for needs assessment, as it is a preliminary step. However, some might express concern about potential bureaucratic delays or the effectiveness of recommendations without guaranteed funding for implementation.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the need for thorough assessment and the urgency of addressing immediate threats. While valuable for long-term strategy, the task force's reporting and implementation timelines (18-30 months) mean that immediate actions are deferred.
Section 2, inserting new Section 306B(b)
Voluntary Working Waterfronts Plan for Covered Entities
This provision allows coastal states, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations ("covered entities") to develop and submit a "working waterfronts plan" to the Secretary for approval. These plans must detail strategies for preserving and expanding access to coastal waters, assess economic and cultural value, identify threats, and outline a strategic plan for preservation and improvement, including public access and community support.
Section 2, inserting new Section 306B(c)
Establishment of a Competitive Grant Program for Waterfront Preservation
This section establishes a competitive grant program, authorizing $50 million annually for fiscal years 2025-2029. Eligible entities (those with approved or developing plans) can receive grants to acquire or improve working waterfronts, including climate adaptation activities, or to develop their plans. The program includes a 75% federal match requirement (waivable for disadvantaged communities), mandates public access (where safe), and requires "working waterfront covenants" to ensure perpetual use consistent with the bill's goals.
Section 2, inserting new Section 306C
Establishment of a Revolving Loan Fund for Waterfront Preservation
This section authorizes $50 million annually for fiscal years 2025-2029 to capitalize state-level revolving loan funds. Eligible coastal states can receive grants to establish these funds, which then provide financial assistance (loans, debt refinancing, guarantees) to covered entities (state agencies, Indian Tribes, local governments, nonprofits) for implementing approved working waterfronts plans. It includes provisions for assistance to disadvantaged communities, allowing for loan subsidies like principal forgiveness, and requires a 20% state match for capitalization grants.
If an eligible covered entity determines that a working waterfront covenant has been violated, all right, title, and interest in the working waterfront revert to the covered entity. The entity then has the right of immediate entry and can convey the property to a qualified holder.
Section 2, new Section 306B(c)(11)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for detailing enforcement mechanisms within a program's operational rules. It's not necessarily evasive but requires careful reading.
Case for: Proponents argue that this strong enforcement mechanism is essential to ensure the perpetual preservation of working waterfronts. Without the ability to reclaim property upon violation, the long-term goals of the program could be undermined, and public funds could be misused.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a reversion clause represents a significant federal or state intrusion into private property rights, potentially deterring participation from property owners who are wary of losing title or interest in their land due to a future determination of covenant violation.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures the long-term integrity of investments made through the grant program, potentially affecting the property rights of all participants in the grant program who enter into such covenants.
Defines "disadvantaged community" as a community the Secretary determines, based on appropriate data, indices, and screening tools, is economically, socially, or environmentally disadvantaged. This definition is crucial because disadvantaged communities receive preferential treatment (e.g., waiver of matching requirements in the grant program, extended loan terms, and loan subsidies in the loan fund).
Section 2, new Section 306B(d)(11)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions at the end of a section. It is not evasive.
Case for: Proponents argue that a flexible definition allows the Secretary to adapt to evolving data and identify communities most in need, ensuring that federal resources are directed equitably and effectively to those facing the greatest challenges.
Case against: Critics might argue that a broad, discretionary definition could lead to inconsistent application or political favoritism, lacking clear, objective criteria that would ensure transparency and predictability in identifying disadvantaged communities.
Estimated impact: This definition directly influences which communities receive enhanced benefits under both the grant and loan programs, potentially channeling significant resources to specific areas.