PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 13, 2007
Community Beaches Protection Act - Rewrites provisions regarding the federal shore protection program to: (1) provide for the protection and restoration of beaches and other coastal infrastructure, as well as shore protection; and (2) include the purpose of promoting healthful recreation.
Includes among areas to be given preference: (1) areas where regional sediment management plans have been adopted; and (2) areas that promote human health and safety and the quality of life.
Directs the Secretary of the Army to pay the federal share of the cost of carrying out shore protection projects and research that encourages the protection, restoration, and enhancement of shores, sandy beaches, and other coastal infrastructure. Sets forth revised provisions regarding the federal share of the cost, which shall be equal for beach erosion control projects for purposes of recreation or for storm damage protection or environmental restoration.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary, at the request of a nonfederal interest and with congressional approval, to extend the period of federal participation in certain shore protection projects.
Amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to prohibit the Secretary from: (1) soliciting contributions, in excess of the nonfederal share assigned to specified project purposes, from nonfederal interests for costs of constructing authorized projects; or (2) conditioning federal participation on the receipt of such contributions.
Makes permanent the national shoreline erosion control development and demonstration program. Requires the program to include provisions for technology transfers to educational institutions. Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cost-sharing agreements with nonfederal interests, and to modify existing shoreline protection projects, under specified circumstances.
People & committees
Rep. LoBiondo, Frank A. [R-NJ-2] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1504 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1504 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1504 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1504 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.