The bill amends the Coastal Zone Management Act to create a coordinated federal effort to identify, prioritize, and preserve "working waterfronts" — the docks, ramps, boatyards, aquaculture sites, and other water-dependent properties that sustain commercial and recreational fishing, boatbuilding, and related businesses.
It directs NOAA to run a Task Force to map needs, approve multi-year working waterfronts plans from coastal states, tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations, run a competitive grant program for plan development and implementation, and provide capitalization grants to states that set up revolving loan funds to finance waterfront preservation and resilience projects. The statute ties federal funding to legally enforceable covenants that protect waterfront uses and requires both program guidance and periodic reporting to Congress.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts new sections into the Coastal Zone Management Act establishing (1) a federal Task Force to assess working waterfront needs and recommend agency responsibilities; (2) a five-year plan approval process for covered entities; (3) a competitive Working Waterfronts Grant Program; and (4) a Working Waterfronts Preservation Loan Fund capitalized by the federal government and state matches.
Who It Affects
Directly affects coastal states, coastal Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, local governments, nonprofit qualified holders, commercial and recreational fishing businesses, boatbuilders, aquaculture operations, and coastal managers at NOAA and other federal agencies that the Task Force names. It also affects private waterfront landowners when grants are tied to recorded covenants.
Why It Matters
This fills a long-running federal gap between coastal planning and targeted financing for shore-dependent economic uses. By pairing planning, legal covenants, competitive grants, and state-administered revolving loans, the bill creates multiple entry points for preservation, resilience upgrades, and acquisition — while combining regulatory approval with funding incentives to shape waterfront outcomes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes a two-track federal approach: coordination plus finance. Coordination comes through a Task Force NOAA must assemble of agency experts, Tribal and Native Hawaiian representatives, and outside specialists.
The Task Force’s job is to work with covered entities — coastal states, tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations — to identify the most pressing threats to working waterfronts, prioritize needs, map which federal agency is responsible for each problem, propose options (including adaptation and mitigation), and deliver a report to Congress. Where the Task Force finds gaps in federal responsibility, it will recommend which agency should take the lead.
Finance comes through two complementary programs. First, the Working Waterfronts Grant Program is a regionally equitable, competitive grant stream administered by the Secretary.
Eligible covered entities that have an approved working waterfronts plan (or are developing one) can apply for grants to either develop or implement plans. Grants may pay for acquisition of waterfront property or interests, capital repairs to wharves and boat ramps, and climate adaptation work.
The program includes a requirement that most projects expand or preserve reasonable public access, administrative caps on technical assistance and overhead (each limited to 5 percent), and criteria prioritizing cultural value, demonstrated need in approved plans, ability to meet matching rules, and rapid-response situations when property is threatened.Second, the bill authorizes capitalization grants to eligible coastal states that create state-level Working Waterfronts Preservation Loan Funds. Those funds are intended to act as revolving sources of loans, security for bonds, and other financial instruments to implement approved state plans.
The statute requires an initial state contribution (a 20 percent deposit tied to the capitalization grant), allows loan terms up to 30 years (40 years for disadvantaged communities when justified), and lets states provide deeper subsidization to disadvantaged communities — subject to statutory caps on loan subsidies. Intended use plans, public notice, and Davis-Bacon compliance for construction projects are required as part of implementation.A central feature tying finance to preservation is the working waterfront covenant.
Anyone who holds title to waterfront property purchased or improved with grant funds must enter a recorded covenant that preserves waterfront use in perpetuity (or provides for covenant accession and payment of fair market value to the Secretary upon sale). If a covenant is violated, the covered entity may seek reversion of title, convey the property to a qualified holder, and exercise immediate entry.
The bill also sets clear timelines for the Task Force deliverable and for agency implementation recommendations, and it requires biennial reporting to Congress on grant outcomes and expenditures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Task Force must deliver a report to Congress within 18 months of enactment, and federal agencies identified by the Task Force must begin implementation of Task Force options within 30 months, subject to appropriations.
An approved working waterfronts plan is effective for five years; covered entities that rely on grants must resubmit plans for Secretary approval at least every five years to maintain eligibility.
The Working Waterfronts Grant Program is authorized at $50 million per year for fiscal years 2025–2029, with up to 5 percent of yearly funds available for technical assistance and up to 5 percent for administrative expenses.
The grant program generally limits federal funding to 75 percent of project costs but allows in-kind noncash matches (including the appraised value of acquired waterfront interests) and waivers for projects serving disadvantaged or small communities.
Capitalization grants to states establish perpetual working waterfront preservation loan funds; each state must deposit at least 20 percent of the capitalization grant into its loan fund when the federal payment is made.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Working Waterfronts Task Force
This provision requires the Secretary to create a Task Force that includes NOAA coastal managers, FWS, USDA, EPA, USGS, Navy, NOAA Fisheries, EDA, other agencies as needed, and representatives of Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. The Task Force must identify and prioritize economic, cultural, and ecological needs for working waterfronts, catalog threats (from sea level rise to trade shifts), assign responsibility to federal agencies for those needs, and recommend agency leads where gaps exist. Practically, this creates a formal interagency coordinator with a mandated timetable (18‑month report) and a 30‑month follow-up window for agencies to begin implementing Task Force recommendations.
Approved Working Waterfronts Plans
Covered entities may submit multi-component working waterfronts plans for Secretary approval; approval lasts five years. Plans must document economic, cultural, and historic value; map at-risk areas and areas with historic waterfront ties; list additional needs and prioritized actions; and explain community support. Plans also must designate, when applicable, a qualified holder who can receive and hold title to waterfront interests. The provision allows plans to reuse existing regional or local documents and to include vulnerability assessments or resilience strategies, so states and tribes can adapt current planning work rather than start from scratch.
Working Waterfronts Grant Program — Uses and Conditions
The Secretary will run a competitive, regionally balanced grant program for eligible covered entities to develop or implement approved plans. Grants can buy waterfront property (from willing sellers), fund repairs or construction of marine facilities, and underwrite adaptation measures. The statute sets selection criteria (cultural/economic significance, plan-based needs, ability to match funds, rapid-response potential, ecosystem impacts) and limits certain expenditures (acquisition must be fair market value or voluntary bargain sale). It also requires most grant-funded projects to preserve or expand reasonable public access and ties grant awards to recorded "working waterfront covenants," enforceable by the grantee or qualified holder, with clear reversion and accession mechanics if covenants are violated.
Definitions and Qualified Holders
This section defines covered entities (coastal states, coastal Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations), coastal users, working waterfronts, and qualified holders (local governments or nonprofit organizations designated in approved plans). The statutory definitions shape eligibility, who can hold property acquired with grants, and who can enforce covenants — a critical design choice that steers long-term stewardship toward public or nonprofit ownership rather than private speculative ownership.
Working Waterfronts Preservation Loan Fund — Capitalization and Use
Section 306C authorizes capitalization grants to eligible coastal states that establish a revolving working waterfronts preservation loan fund. States must deposit a 20 percent match into the fund when they receive the federal capitalization grant; funds are available in perpetuity and can be used for loans, refinancing, guarantees, or to back bonds (subject to limits on tax‑exempt obligations). States must prepare annual intended use plans with public notice and may reserve a small share each year to assist Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. The statute also builds in Davis‑Bacon wage compliance for construction supported by fund dollars and allows extra subsidization for disadvantaged communities, within percentage limits.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Commercial and recreational fishing businesses — The bill prioritizes preserving boat ramps, wharves, and slips and funds repairs and acquisitions that sustain businesses dependent on water access.
- Coastal states, Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations — They get federal planning support, competitive grants, and capitalization grants to create revolving funds they control, increasing local financing flexibility.
- Disadvantaged coastal communities — The statute allows deeper subsidization (principal forgiveness, grants, negative interest loans) targeted to economically or socially disadvantaged communities to improve equity in access and resilience projects.
- Nonprofit qualified holders and local governments — The law explicitly supports nonprofit and local-government entities as holders of conserved waterfront interests, creating new stewardship roles and revenue for conservation-oriented organizations.
- Public and recreational users — Most grant-funded projects must expand or preserve reasonable public access to coastal waters, which protects recreational boating and shoreline access.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies identified by the Task Force — Agencies must implement options the Task Force outlines within the 30‑month window to the extent practicable and appropriations permit, creating new program demands and potential coordination costs.
- Eligible coastal states — States must provide an immediate 20 percent deposit for capitalization grants and run revolving funds, prepare intended use plans, and may shoulder administrative costs tied to loan programs.
- Private waterfront owners accepting grant funds or selling to grantees — Owners who take federal grant money will face recorded covenants that restrict future use and may trigger reversion provisions on covenant violation.
- Local governments and nonprofits acting as qualified holders — These entities assume long-term stewardship responsibilities and liabilities for covenant enforcement and may need to build capacity for property management.
- Small coastal jurisdictions — Meeting matching requirements, appraisals for in‑kind matches, and Davis‑Bacon compliance may strain small towns and island communities unless they secure waivers or state support.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is preservation versus flexibility: the bill locks waterfronts into working uses through recorded covenants and state-controlled funds to prevent conversion, which protects community livelihoods and public access, but those same legal locks reduce private market flexibility, may discourage investment, and can make it harder to adapt uses over time as climate impacts or economic conditions change.
The bill creates durable incentives for preservation, but several implementation challenges and trade-offs deserve attention. First, the covenant-and-reversion mechanism is powerful: it protects waterfront uses in perpetuity but can produce sharp conflicts with property markets, complicate transactions, and deter private investment in waterfront areas.
The statute attempts to soften this by requiring willing sellers and allowing fair‑market value sales, but the threshold for what constitutes coercion or willingness is left to implementing guidance.
Second, the revolving loan fund architecture relies on states to capitalize, manage, and sustain funds in perpetuity. That design achieves local control and potentially long-term leverage, but it shifts credit and administrative risk to states and their chosen recipients.
Defaults, changes in political priorities, or mispricing of loans could impair capital turnover. The statute permits significant subsidization for disadvantaged communities and uses fund interest earnings for state administrative allowances, but the long-term fiscal sustainability of each state fund will depend on underwriting standards, loan performance, and the initial size of the capitalization relative to local demand.
Third, interagency coordination is necessary but not guaranteed. The Task Force must map agency responsibilities and recommend leads for gaps, yet the legal language conditions agency implementation on practicability and appropriations.
That means identified needs may go unaddressed without clear funding lines or executive direction. Finally, environmental trade-offs matter: preserving or expanding working waterfronts can conflict with habitat restoration or shoreline naturalization projects, and the statute requires an assessment of ecosystem impacts but leaves balancing choices to local plans and the grant selection process.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.