PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1] · D–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. 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.1808 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.1808 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.1808 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.1808 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would create federal grants and state-run loan funds to preserve and improve waterfront property used for fishing, boating businesses, boatbuilding, aquaculture, and other businesses that depend on coastal waters. Eligible governments, Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and nonprofits could participate under different rules for each program. Loan repayments would replenish the state funds for future assistance. Grant-funded projects would generally face public-access requirements, subject to a safety exception, and the grant program would require waterfront covenants restricting incompatible conversion for covered property interests. A federal task force would identify waterfront needs and possible responses.
The Secretary shall, in consultation with covered entities, Federal agencies the Secretary determines appropriate, and interested coastal stakeholders with expertise in working waterfronts planning, establish a regionally equitable and competitive grant program, to be known as the Working Waterfronts Grant Program.
The term working waterfront means real property (including support structures over water and other facilities) that— (A) provides access to coastal waters by coastal users; and (B) is used for, or supports, commercial and recreational fishing, recreational fishing and boating businesses, and boatbuilding, aquaculture, and other water-dependent, coastal-related business.
The term covered entity means— (A) a coastal state; (B) a coastal Indian Tribe; or (C) a Native Hawaiian organization.
The term covered entity means— (A) a State agency; (B) an Indian Tribe; (C) a Native Hawaiian organization; (D) a local government; or (E) a nonprofit organization.
Each working waterfronts preservation loan fund under this section shall be established, maintained, and credited with repayments and interest and the fund corpus shall be available in perpetuity to provide financial assistance described in subsection (f) to covered entities under this section.
A project carried out with a grant awarded under this subsection, other than a project that involves commercial fishing or other industrial access points to which the eligible covered entity determines public access would be unsafe, shall provide for the expansion, improvement, or preservation of reasonable and appropriate public access to coastal waters at or in the vicinity of working waterfronts.
An eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection may use such grant award with respect to a working waterfront only for which each person other than the eligible covered entity that holds title to or an interest in such working waterfront enters into a working waterfront covenant.
The working waterfront will be managed in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of this section, and the working waterfront will not be converted to any use that is inconsistent with this section.
The Secretary shall establish a task force to work directly with covered entities, users of working waterfronts, and coastal stakeholders to identify and address critical needs with respect to working waterfronts.
Section 1 would name the bill the Keep America’s Waterfronts Working Act of 2025. Section 2 would add working-waterfront programs to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
This Act may be cited as the Keep America’s Waterfronts Working Act of 2025.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 306A (16 U.S.C. 1455a) the following:
Direct grant eligibility would cover coastal states, coastal Indian Tribes, and qualifying Native Hawaiian nonprofits. Applicants would need an approved waterfront plan, a plan under development, or a coastal land-use plan the Secretary finds sufficient. A coastal Indian Tribe would qualify through specified Tribal land or a reservation in a coastal state.
The term covered entity means— (A) a coastal state; (B) a coastal Indian Tribe; or (C) a Native Hawaiian organization.
The term eligible covered entity means a covered entity that— (A) has an approved working waterfronts plan; (B) is in the process of developing a working waterfronts plan for approval under subsection (b); or (C) has a coastal land use plan that the Secretary determines is sufficient for the purposes of this section.
The term coastal Indian Tribe means an Indian Tribe with respect to which land owned by the Indian Tribe, held in trust by the United States for the Indian Tribe, or held by the Indian Tribe and subject to restrictions on alienation imposed by the United States or the reservation of the Indian Tribe is located within a coastal state.
The term Native Hawaiian organization means a nonprofit organization— (A) that serves the interests of Native Hawaiians; (B) in which Native Hawaiians serve in substantive and policymaking positions; (C) that is recognized for having expertise in Native Hawaiian culture and heritage, including tourism; and (D) is located within a coastal state.
The Secretary would appoint a task force of waterfront experts and federal, Tribal, and Native Hawaiian representatives. It would prioritize waterfront needs in coastal states with approved coastal management programs, consult on possible responses, and identify responsible federal agencies or recommend an agency where none is identified.
The Secretary shall appoint members of the Task Force, and shall include— (A) experts in the unique economic, social, cultural, ecological, geographic, and resource concerns of working waterfronts; and (B) representatives from— (i) the Office of Coastal Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (ii) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; (iii) the Department of Agriculture; (iv) the Environmental Protection Agency; (v) the United States Geological Survey; (vi) the Department of the Navy; (vii) the National Marine Fisheries Service; (viii) the Economic Development Administration; (ix) such other Federal agencies as the Secretary determines appropriate; (x) Indian Tribes; and (xi) Native Hawaiian organizations.
(A) identify and prioritize critical needs with respect to working waterfronts in coastal states that have a management program approved under section 306, in the areas of— (i) economic and cultural importance of such working waterfronts to communities; (ii) changing circumstances and threats such working waterfronts face from trade barriers and environmental changes, including sea level rise, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, and harmful algal blooms; and (iii) identifying such working waterfronts and highlighting them within communities; (B) outline options, in consultation with coastal states and coastal stakeholders, to address each critical need identified under subparagraph (A), including adaptation and mitigation options where applicable; (C) identify which Federal agency is responsible for addressing each critical need identified under subparagraph (A); and (D) recommend which Federal agency is best suited to address each critical need identified under subparagraph (A) for which no responsible Federal agency is identified under subparagraph (C).
The task force would report to Congress within 18 months after enactment. Agencies identified as responsible would have to implement the outlined options within 30 months after enactment, but only to the extent practicable and subject to available appropriations.
(4) Report Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Task Force shall submit to Congress a report regarding the findings of the Task Force under this subsection. (5) Implementation Not later than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the head of each Federal agency identified under paragraph (3)(C) shall, to the extent practicable and subject to the availability of appropriations, implement the options outlined under paragraph (3)(B).
Waterfront plans could be submitted for federal approval. As applicable, they would have to preserve and expand coastal access, incorporate existing regional and local waterfront policies, involve stakeholders, and fit other coastal programs. Plans would assess waterfront value, laws, threatened areas, historically connected areas lacking waterfronts, improvement needs, public access, and community support, and set priorities for preservation, expansion, and improvement. Environmental impacts of expansion or new development would be assessed where appropriate.
A covered entity may submit to the Secretary a working waterfronts plan for approval under this subsection, which, as applicable and with respect to the covered entity— (A) shall— (i) provide for the preservation and expansion of access to coastal waters by coastal users; (ii) be complementary to and incorporate the policies, objectives, and regulations of regional and local working waterfronts plans or strategies in effect before the date of the enactment of this section; (iii) be developed through a process that— (I) ensures the involvement of coastal stakeholders; and (II) is consistent with other coastal management programs, regulations, and activities of the covered entity;
(I) an assessment of the economic, social, cultural, and historical value of working waterfronts; (II) a description of any relevant non-Federal laws and regulations that affect working waterfronts in the geographic areas identified under subclauses (III) and (IV); (III) an identification of geographic areas where working waterfronts are, as of the date of the enactment of this subsection, under threat of conversion to uses incompatible with commercial and recreational fishing, recreational fishing and boating businesses, aquaculture, boatbuilding, or other water-dependent, coastal-related business, and the level of that threat; (IV) an identification of geographic areas with a historical connection to working waterfronts where working waterfronts are not, as of the date of the enactment of this section, available, and, where appropriate, an assessment of the environmental impacts of any expansion or new development of working waterfronts on the coastal ecosystems of such geographic areas; (V) an identification of additional working waterfronts needs, including improvements to existing working waterfronts; (VI) a strategic and prioritized plan for the preservation, expansion, and improvement of each relevant working waterfront; (VII) for geographic areas identified under subclauses (III) and (IV), an identification of the current availability and potential for expansion of public access to coastal waters in such geographic areas; (VIII) a description of the degree of community support for the plan included under subclause (VI);
Plans could designate a nonprofit, or a local government when the covered entity is a coastal state, to carry out grant functions and hold waterfront property. These designated holders would have to enforce their waterfront agreements, while the covered entity would retain responsibility for management consistent with its plan. Plans would also need a contingency for property returning to the covered entity after an agreement violation.
The term qualified holder means— (A) a unit of local government of a covered entity, if the covered entity is a coastal state; or (B) a nonprofit organization; that is designated by a covered entity in the approved working waterfronts plan of the covered entity to carry out some or all of the functions of the covered entity under the grant program if the covered entity applies for and is awarded a grant under the grant program, including holding title to or an interest in a working waterfront acquired with a grant awarded under the grant program.
(iv) designate each qualified holder of the covered entity, if any; (v) if the covered entity designates a qualified holder under clause (iv)— (I) ensure that such qualified holder complies with the duty of a qualified holder to enforce each working waterfront covenant to which the qualified holder is a party; and (II) certify that the covered entity retains the responsibility to ensure that each affected working waterfront is managed in a manner that is consistent with the working waterfronts plan of the covered entity;
(IX) a contingency plan for any property that reverts to the covered entity pursuant to a determination made by the covered entity under subsection (c)(11)(B);
Plans could use existing information, include assessments of hazards and sea-level exposure, and form part of an approved coastal management program. Approval would last five years. Grant participants relying on an approved waterfront plan would have to resubmit it before each five-year period ends.
(B) may— (i) be developed using existing information contained in relevant surveys, plans, or other documents to fulfill the information requirements under this paragraph; (ii) include a vulnerability assessment, hazards resilience plan, or identification of waterfront properties exposed to sea level rise or inundation; and (iii) be part of a management program approved under section 306.
(2) Duration of approval (A) In general A working waterfronts plan approved by the Secretary under this subsection shall be effective during the 5-year period beginning on the date of such approval. (B) Maintenance of approval An eligible covered entity that participates in the grant program on the basis of an approved working waterfronts plan of that eligible covered entity shall resubmit such working waterfronts plan for approval by the Secretary before the end of each 5-year period described in subparagraph (A).
The Secretary would establish a competitive grant program with regional equity. Grants could support plan development, implementation or revision, property acquisition, construction or repair of facilities such as wharfs and boat ramps, and necessary climate adaptation and mitigation activities.
The Secretary shall, in consultation with covered entities, Federal agencies the Secretary determines appropriate, and interested coastal stakeholders with expertise in working waterfronts planning, establish a regionally equitable and competitive grant program, to be known as the Working Waterfronts Grant Program.
The Secretary may award grants under this subsection to eligible covered entities— (A) to implement or revise an approved working waterfronts plan of such eligible covered entity, including— (i) acquiring a working waterfront or an interest in a working waterfront; (ii) making improvements to a working waterfront, including constructing or repairing wharfs, boat ramps, or related facilities; or (iii) carrying out necessary climate adaptation mitigation activities for a working waterfront; or (B) to develop a working waterfronts plan of such eligible covered entity under subsection (b).
Grant applications would have to follow the Secretary’s requirements and, where applicable, the applicant’s approved coastal management program. The Secretary would have 60 days to approve or reject an application and would issue implementation guidelines after consultation. Award decisions would consider waterfront significance and need, matching-fund capacity, property-market urgency, and applicable ecosystem and user impacts.
To be eligible for a grant under this subsection, an eligible covered entity shall submit an application to the Secretary— (i) that, if applicable, is consistent with the management program of the eligible covered entity approved under section 306; and (ii) in such form, at such time, and containing such information as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary receives an application for a grant under this paragraph, the Secretary shall approve or reject such application. (4) Guidelines The Secretary shall, in consultation with the entities described in paragraph (1), issue guidelines regarding the implementation of the grant program.
(A) The economic, cultural, and historical significance of working waterfronts to the eligible covered entity. (B) The demonstrated working waterfronts needs of the eligible covered entity, as described in the approved working waterfronts plan of the eligible covered entity, if any. (C) The ability of the eligible covered entity to meet the matching requirement under paragraph (10). (D) The potential for rapid turnover in the ownership of relevant working waterfronts, and, if applicable, the need for the eligible covered entity to respond quickly when property in an existing or potential working waterfront area or public access area, as identified in the approved working waterfronts plan of the eligible covered entity, if any, comes under threat of conversion to incompatible uses or becomes available for purchase. (E) As applicable, the impact of the approved working waterfronts plan of the eligible covered entity, if any, on the coastal ecosystem and working waterfronts of the eligible covered entity and the users of the coastal ecosystem of the eligible covered entity.
At a grant recipient’s request, the Secretary would provide technical help with plans, other federal assistance, resilience, waterfront protection tools, stormwater practices, or sharing best practices. Technical assistance could use no more than 5 percent of annual grant-program funds.
Upon the request of an eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide to such eligible covered entity technical assistance— (i) to identify and obtain sources of Federal technical or financial assistance other than that provided under this subsection to develop a working waterfronts plan for approval under subsection (b) or to implement or revise an approved working waterfronts plan; (ii) to develop a working waterfronts plan for approval under subsection (b); (iii) to implement or revise an approved working waterfronts plan; (iv) to integrate resilience planning into working waterfronts preservation efforts of such eligible covered entity; (v) to develop additional tools to protect working waterfronts; (vi) regarding guidance for best storm water management practices with regard to working waterfronts; or (vii) to collect and disseminate best practices regarding working waterfronts and resilience planning.
The Secretary may use not more than 5 percent of the amounts made available under this subsection in each fiscal year to provide technical assistance under this paragraph.
Grant-funded projects would have to expand, improve, or preserve reasonable and appropriate public access to coastal waters at or near waterfronts. The requirement would exclude projects involving commercial fishing or other industrial access points where the eligible covered entity determines public access would be unsafe.
A project carried out with a grant awarded under this subsection, other than a project that involves commercial fishing or other industrial access points to which the eligible covered entity determines public access would be unsafe, shall provide for the expansion, improvement, or preservation of reasonable and appropriate public access to coastal waters at or in the vicinity of working waterfronts.
Grant-funded purchases of waterfront ownership or property rights, including easements, would have to be at or below fair market value from willing sellers. Purchases below fair market value would also require the seller to certify to the Secretary willingness and freedom from coercion. These rules would apply to both direct recipients and entities receiving passed-through grant funds.
An eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection, or any entity to which such eligible covered entity allocates a portion of such grant under paragraph (9), may use such grant award to acquire title to or an interest in a working waterfront, including an easement, only— (A) for fair market value from a willing seller; or (B) for less than fair market value from a seller that certifies to the Secretary that the seller is willing and is not subject to coercion.
Recipients could pass part of a grant to state or local government units, nonprofits, fishing cooperatives, or other appropriate entities, while ensuring compliance with program requirements. The Secretary would encourage equitable allocation among waterfronts identified in an approved plan, if any.
An eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection may allocate a portion of such grant award to a unit of State or local government, a nonprofit organization, a fishing cooperative, or any other appropriate entity for the purpose of carrying out this subsection if such eligible covered entity ensures that any such allocated grant award is used consistently with this subsection.
The Secretary shall encourage each eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection to equitably allocate such grant award among working waterfronts identified in the approved working waterfronts plan of each such eligible covered entity, if any.
Federal grants normally could cover no more than 75 percent of a project. The Secretary could waive that limit when a recipient has designated a qualified holder in a disadvantaged community or a community unable to obtain other funding because of its small population or low income. The Secretary could also waive it for any other reason considered appropriate. Disadvantage would be determined using data and screening tools and could be economic, social, or environmental.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Federal share of a project carried out with a grant awarded under this subsection may not exceed 75 percent. (B) Waiver of matching requirement The Secretary may waive the application of subparagraph (A)— (i) with respect to an eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection that has designated a qualified holder that is located within— (I) a disadvantaged community; or (II) a community that has an inability to draw on other sources of funding because of the small population or low income of the community; or (ii) for any other reason the Secretary determines appropriate.
The term disadvantaged community means a community the Secretary determines, based on appropriate data, indices, and screening tools, is economically, socially, or environmentally disadvantaged.
The nonfederal project share could include noncash contributions. Qualifying property would need an appraisal, identification in the application, and permanent holding by a qualified holder. Acquisition would be subject to a three-year deadline after the award or application; the application-based option also specifies the initial five-year plan period. Acquisition and improvement costs would have to be identified in the application and meet the stated plan-period or property-acquisition deadlines.
An eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection may satisfy the non-Federal share of a project carried out with a grant awarded under this subsection through in-kind contributions and other noncash support, including the following: (i) The value, as determined by an appraisal performed at such time before the award of the grant as the Secretary determines appropriate, of a working waterfront or an interest in a working waterfront, including conservation and other easements, that is held in perpetuity by a qualified holder, if the working waterfront or interest in a working waterfront— (I) is identified in the grant application; and (II) is acquired by the qualified holder not later than 3 years after— (aa) the grant award date; or (bb) the date of the submission of such application and before the end of the initial 5-year period for which the approved working waterfronts plan associated with the grant application, if any, is effective. (ii) The costs, including cash or in-kind contributions, associated with the acquisition, restoration, or enhancement of or making other improvements to a working waterfront or an interest in a working waterfront, if— (I) such costs are identified in the grant application; and (II) the costs are incurred— (aa) before the end of the initial 5-year period for which the approved working waterfronts plan associated with the grant application, if any, is effective; or (bb) for working waterfronts described in clause (i), within the time limits described in that clause.
Before grant funds could be used for a waterfront, every owner or holder of a property interest other than the eligible covered entity would have to enter a waterfront covenant—a property agreement in a form that can be officially recorded. It would require continuing ownership subject to the agreement, subject to the sale provisions, management consistent with the program, and no conversion to inconsistent uses. The agreement would be subject to enforcement and oversight.
An eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection may use such grant award with respect to a working waterfront only for which each person other than the eligible covered entity that holds title to or an interest in such working waterfront enters into a working waterfront covenant.
The term working waterfront covenant means an agreement in recordable form entered into between a person that holds title to or an interest in a working waterfront and a covered entity that is awarded a grant under the grant program or a qualified holder of such covered entity that provides such assurances as the Secretary determines necessary to ensure the following: (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the title to or interest in the working waterfront will be held by an entity that is subject to such agreement in perpetuity. (B) The working waterfront will be managed in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of this section, and the working waterfront will not be converted to any use that is inconsistent with this section.
(D) Such agreement shall be subject to enforcement and oversight by the covered entity or by another person as the Secretary determines appropriate.
If waterfront ownership or a property interest subject to a covenant were later sold or exchanged, every party would have to accept the agreement. The parties would have to pay the Secretary an amount equal to the fair market value of that ownership or interest. At the Secretary’s discretion, the money would go to the relevant covered entity or its qualified holder to implement the approved plan.
(C) If the title to or interest in the working waterfront is subsequently sold or otherwise exchanged— (i) each party involved in such sale or exchange shall accede to such agreement; and (ii) funds equal to the fair market value of the title to or interest in the working waterfront shall be paid to the Secretary by the parties to the sale or exchange, and such funds shall be, at the discretion of the Secretary, paid to the relevant covered entity or a qualified holder of such covered entity for use in the implementation of the approved working waterfronts plan of the covered entity.
An eligible covered entity could determine that a covenant was violated only on the record after an opportunity for a hearing. Following that determination, all rights, ownership, and interests in the covered waterfront would revert to the entity. It would have an immediate right to enter and could transfer the waterfront or property interest to a qualified holder.
An eligible covered entity may determine, on the record after an opportunity for a hearing, that a working waterfront covenant of the eligible covered entity has been violated.
If an eligible covered entity makes a determination under clause (i) that a violation described under that clause has occurred— (I) all right, title, and interest in and to the working waterfront covered by the violated working waterfront covenant shall revert to the eligible covered entity; (II) the eligible covered entity may convey the working waterfront or interest in the working waterfront to a qualified holder; and (III) the eligible covered entity shall have the right of immediate entry onto the working waterfront covered by the violated working waterfront covenant.
The Secretary would set grant conditions to keep funds consistent with the program and report to Congress every two years on performance, expenditures, and each project. This information could be included in section 316 reports. Administrative expenses could use no more than 5 percent of annual grant-program funds, separately from the technical-assistance cap.
The Secretary shall subject each grant awarded under this subsection to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to ensure that each such grant is used for purposes consistent with this section.
The Secretary shall biennially submit to Congress a report regarding the implementation of this subsection, which shall include— (i) an evaluation, based on performance measures developed by the Secretary, of the effectiveness of the grant program in accomplishing the purposes of this subsection; (ii) an account of all expenditures under this subsection; and (iii) descriptions of each project carried out using a grant awarded under this section. (B) Alternative manner of submission The Secretary may submit each report required under subparagraph (A) by including the information required under that subparagraph in each report required under section 316.
The Secretary may use not more than 5 percent of the amounts made available under this subsection in each fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses necessary to carry out this subsection.
The Secretary may use not more than 5 percent of the amounts made available under this subsection in each fiscal year to provide technical assistance under this paragraph.
A separate program would let the Secretary provide capitalization grants—money to establish or build up a loan fund—to coastal states with approved waterfront plans. States would have to establish waterfront preservation loan funds and deposit the grants into them. A state would have two fiscal years to commit a capitalization grant to obligations.
The Secretary may enter into an agreement with an eligible coastal state to issue a capitalization grant, including a letter of credit, to such eligible coastal state to implement the approved working waterfronts plan of such eligible coastal state.
(i) In general To be eligible to receive a capitalization grant under this subsection, an eligible coastal state shall establish a working waterfronts preservation loan fund. (ii) Deposit Each capitalization grant made to an eligible coastal state under this paragraph shall be deposited in the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of such eligible coastal state. (C) Extended period A capitalization grant made to an eligible coastal state under this section shall be available to the eligible coastal state for obligation for a period of 2 fiscal years.
The term eligible coastal state means a coastal state that has an approved working waterfronts plan.
State loan funds would support waterfront preservation, improvement, restoration, rehabilitation, and acquisition under the state’s approved plan and federal criteria. Eligible recipients would include state agencies, Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, local governments, and nonprofits. A state could not assist a recipient lacking the technical, managerial, and financial ability to comply with program requirements.
An eligible coastal state shall use amounts deposited in the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of such eligible coastal state, including loan repayments and interest earned on such amounts, to provide financial assistance described in subsection (f) to a covered entity to implement the approved working waterfronts plan of such eligible coastal state through preservation, improvement, restoration, rehabilitation, and acquisition of working waterfronts pursuant to criteria established by the Secretary.
The term covered entity means— (A) a State agency; (B) an Indian Tribe; (C) a Native Hawaiian organization; (D) a local government; or (E) a nonprofit organization.
An eligible coastal state may not provide financial assistance described in subsection (f) to a covered entity that does not have the technical, managerial, and financial capability to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section.
The loan-fund provisions would allow certain state bonds to finance the required state contribution, with proceeds deposited into the fund. When amounts are used as revenue for this purpose, the text limits that revenue to fund interest earnings. Fund deposits could not pay or secure obligations whose interest is exempt from the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; that chapter is not supplied.
A covered entity may use amounts received under this section as a source of revenue (restricted solely to interest earnings of the applicable working waterfronts preservation loan fund) or security for payment of the principal and interest on a revenue or general obligation bond issued by the eligible coastal state to provide matching funds under subsection (e) if the proceeds of the sale of the bond will be deposited in the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of such eligible coastal state.
Amounts deposited in the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of an eligible coastal state may not be used as a source of payment of, or security for (directly or indirectly), in whole or in part, any obligation the interest on which is exempt from the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
For construction financed wholly or partly by a waterfront loan fund, the Secretary would have to ensure compliance with the referenced Davis-Bacon Act under the bill’s prevailing-wages provision. The incorporated requirements are not reproduced in the supplied source. Each participating state would also have to reserve 0.2 percent of its fund each fiscal year for financial assistance to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
(4) Prevailing wages The Secretary shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.; commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act) with respect to any construction project carried out in whole or in part with financial assistance made available from a working waterfronts preservation loan fund.
Each eligible coastal state that enters into a capitalization agreement under paragraph (1) shall, each fiscal year, reserve 0.2 percent of the amount in the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state to provide financial assistance described in subsection (f) to an Indian Tribe or a Native Hawaiian organization.
Participating states would prepare annual intended-use plans with notice and an opportunity for public comment. Plans would list projects for the first fiscal year beginning after finalization, expected assistance terms, community sizes, distribution criteria, fund finances, and short- and long-term goals.
Each eligible coastal state that enters into a capitalization agreement under subsection (a)(1) shall annually prepare an intended use plan, subject to notice and an opportunity for public comment, that identifies the intended uses of the amounts available to the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state.
(A) a list of each project to be assisted with amounts from the working waterfronts preservation loan fund in the first fiscal year that begins after the date such intended use plan is finalized, including, with respect to each such project— (i) a description of the project; (ii) the expected terms of financial assistance; and (iii) the size of the community served; (B) the criteria and methods established to distribute amounts from the working waterfronts preservation loan fund; and (C) a description of the financial status of the working waterfronts preservation loan fund and the short- and long-term goals of such working waterfronts preservation loan fund.
Loan funds would operate indefinitely, with repayments and interest returned to the funds for further assistance. Money not needed for commitments or spending would have to be invested in interest-bearing obligations.
Each working waterfronts preservation loan fund under this section shall be established, maintained, and credited with repayments and interest and the fund corpus shall be available in perpetuity to provide financial assistance described in subsection (f) to covered entities under this section.
To the extent amounts in a working waterfronts preservation loan fund are not required for obligation or expenditure, such amounts shall be invested in interest-bearing obligations.
If a participating state makes a loan to a disadvantaged community under the loan-fund program, it could provide that community additional subsidies, including forgiveness of principal—the amount borrowed—grants, negative-interest loans, other loan forgiveness, or buying, refinancing, or restructuring debt. These subsidies could not exceed 35 percent of a state’s annual capitalization grant and would have to reach at least 12 percent when the Secretary finds enough loan applications from disadvantaged communities. A loan with an interest rate of zero or above would not itself count as additional subsidization.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if an eligible coastal state makes a loan to a disadvantaged community pursuant to subsection (a)(2), the eligible coastal state may provide additional subsidization to such disadvantaged community, including— (i) forgiveness of principal; (ii) grants; (iii) negative interest loans; (iv) other loan forgiveness; and (v) through buying, refinancing, or restructuring debt.
A loan from a working waterfronts preservation loan fund with an interest rate equal to or greater than 0 percent shall not be considered additional subsidization for the purposes of this subsection.
Of the amount of a capitalization grant received by an eligible coastal state for any fiscal year, the total amount of loan subsidies made by such eligible coastal state pursuant to paragraph (1)— (A) may not exceed 35 percent; and (B) to the extent that there are, as determined by the Secretary, sufficient applications from disadvantaged communities for loans, may not be less than 12 percent.
Each participating state would have to contribute at least 20 percent of its federal capitalization grant amount to the loan fund. That contribution would be due on or before the federal grant payment date.
Each capitalization agreement entered into under subsection (a)(1) shall require that the eligible coastal state subject to such agreement deposit in the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state an amount equal to not less than 20 percent of the total amount of the capitalization grant to be made to the eligible coastal state on or before the date on which the capitalization grant payment is made to the eligible coastal state.
Loans could charge no more than the market interest rate. Repayment of principal and interest would begin within 18 months after project completion, and loans normally would be fully repaid within 30 years after completion. Borrowers would need a dedicated repayment revenue source; privately owned waterfront property could instead demonstrate adequate security for the loan. All principal and interest payments would return to the fund.
(A) the interest rate for the loan does not exceed the market rate; (B) principal and interest payments on the loan will commence not later than 18 months after completion of the project for which the loan was made; (C) the loan will be fully amortized not later than 30 years after the completion of the project, except that in the case of a disadvantaged community an eligible coastal state may provide an extended term for the loan, if the extended term— (i) terminates not later than the date that is 40 years after the completion of the project; and (ii) does not exceed the expected design life of the project; (D) the recipient of the loan will establish a dedicated source of revenue (or, in the case of a privately owned working waterfront property, demonstrate that there is adequate security) for the repayment of the loan; and (E) the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state will be credited with all payments of principal and interest on the loan;
For disadvantaged communities, states could extend repayment beyond the ordinary 30-year limit, up to 40 years after project completion. The term could not exceed the project’s expected design life.
the loan will be fully amortized not later than 30 years after the completion of the project, except that in the case of a disadvantaged community an eligible coastal state may provide an extended term for the loan, if the extended term— (i) terminates not later than the date that is 40 years after the completion of the project; and (ii) does not exceed the expected design life of the project;
Loan funds could also buy or refinance municipal and specified public-agency debt at no more than market interest rates. They could guarantee or insure local borrowing when all proceeds finance an eligible project and doing so would improve access to credit or reduce interest. Funds could support state bonds whose proceeds return to the fund and could earn interest.
(2) to buy or refinance the debt obligation of a municipality or an intermunicipal or interstate agency within the eligible coastal state at an interest rate that is less than or equal to the market interest rate; (3) to guarantee, or purchase insurance for, a local obligation (all of the proceeds of which finance a project eligible for financial assistance under this section) if the guarantee or purchase would improve credit market access or reduce the interest rate applicable to the obligation; (4) as a source of revenue or security for the payment of principal and interest on a revenue or general obligation bond issued by the eligible coastal state if the proceeds of the sale of the bond will be deposited into the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state; or (5) to earn interest on the amounts deposited into the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state.
States could combine a waterfront fund’s financial administration with another revolving fund if the Secretary finds that waterfront money would remain separately accounted for and used only for its authorized purposes. The annual allowance would combine fees collected for administration with a separate formula amount available for administration and technical assistance. That formula amount would be the greatest of $400,000, 0.2 percent of the fund’s current value, or 4 percent of that fiscal year’s grant awards to the fund. Reasonable start-up costs incurred after enactment could be recovered as administrative costs.
an eligible coastal state may combine the financial administration of a working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state with the financial administration of any other revolving fund established by the eligible coastal state if the Secretary determines that the capitalization grants made under this section, together with loan repayments and interest, will be separately accounted for and used solely for the purposes specified in subsection (a).
For each fiscal year, an eligible coastal state may use the amount described in subparagraph (B)— (i) to cover the reasonable costs of administration of the programs under this section, including the recovery of reasonable costs expended to establish a working waterfronts preservation loan fund that are incurred after the date of the enactment of this section; and (ii) to provide technical assistance to working waterfronts projects carried out within the eligible coastal state.
The amount referred to in subparagraph (A) is an amount equal to the sum of— (i) the amount of any fees collected by the eligible coastal state for use in accordance with subparagraph (A)(i), regardless of the source; and (ii) the greater of— (I) $400,000; (II) 0.2 percent of the current valuation of the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state; or (III) an amount equal to 4 percent of all grant awards made to the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state under this section for the fiscal year.
The bill would authorize Congress to appropriate $50 million annually for the grant program and another $50 million annually for the loan-fund program for fiscal years 2025 through 2029. These are authorizations for funding, not appropriations that themselves supply the money.
(15) Authorization of appropriations There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
(h) Authorization of appropriations There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on March 3, 2025. It does not establish any later legislative outcome.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:16:13Z. 2025-03-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-03-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated rider was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. Program authorizations and statutory allocation rules are not automatically earmarks. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or formal earmark status in missing disclosures or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The findings identify reserved assistance, preferential financing, and specified exceptions within the waterfront policy. These classifications describe the treatment provided without judging its justification.
Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations would benefit from a mandatory annual reservation of 0.2 percent of each participating state’s waterfront loan fund. This is a group-specific allocation within the waterfront program, rather than a designation of a particular recipient or project.
Each eligible coastal state that enters into a capitalization agreement under paragraph (1) shall, each fiscal year, reserve 0.2 percent of the amount in the working waterfronts preservation loan fund of the eligible coastal state to provide financial assistance described in subsection (f) to an Indian Tribe or a Native Hawaiian organization.
If a participating state makes a loan to a disadvantaged community under the loan-fund program, it could provide that community additional subsidies, including principal forgiveness, grants, and negative-interest loans. Subsidies would be capped at 35 percent of a state’s annual capitalization grant, with a 12 percent minimum when the Secretary determines sufficient loan applications exist. Disadvantaged communities could also receive longer repayment terms than the ordinary 30-year maximum, reaching 40 years after project completion but not exceeding the project’s expected design life. These are preferential financing terms within the waterfront program.
The term disadvantaged community means a community the Secretary determines, based on appropriate data, indices, and screening tools, is economically, socially, or environmentally disadvantaged.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if an eligible coastal state makes a loan to a disadvantaged community pursuant to subsection (a)(2), the eligible coastal state may provide additional subsidization to such disadvantaged community, including— (i) forgiveness of principal; (ii) grants; (iii) negative interest loans; (iv) other loan forgiveness; and (v) through buying, refinancing, or restructuring debt.
Of the amount of a capitalization grant received by an eligible coastal state for any fiscal year, the total amount of loan subsidies made by such eligible coastal state pursuant to paragraph (1)— (A) may not exceed 35 percent; and (B) to the extent that there are, as determined by the Secretary, sufficient applications from disadvantaged communities for loans, may not be less than 12 percent.
the loan will be fully amortized not later than 30 years after the completion of the project, except that in the case of a disadvantaged community an eligible coastal state may provide an extended term for the loan, if the extended term— (i) terminates not later than the date that is 40 years after the completion of the project; and (ii) does not exceed the expected design life of the project;
Grant recipients with designated holders in disadvantaged communities, or communities unable to obtain other funding because of small population or low income, would be specifically eligible for discretionary relief from the usual 75 percent federal-share limit. This relief would not be exclusive to those recipients: the Secretary could also waive the limit for any other appropriate reason.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Federal share of a project carried out with a grant awarded under this subsection may not exceed 75 percent. (B) Waiver of matching requirement The Secretary may waive the application of subparagraph (A)— (i) with respect to an eligible covered entity that is awarded a grant under this subsection that has designated a qualified holder that is located within— (I) a disadvantaged community; or (II) a community that has an inability to draw on other sources of funding because of the small population or low income of the community; or (ii) for any other reason the Secretary determines appropriate.
Grant-funded projects involving commercial fishing or other industrial access points would receive an exception from the public-access requirement when the eligible covered entity determines public access would be unsafe. The exception is tied to a safety determination within the waterfront program.
A project carried out with a grant awarded under this subsection, other than a project that involves commercial fishing or other industrial access points to which the eligible covered entity determines public access would be unsafe, shall provide for the expansion, improvement, or preservation of reasonable and appropriate public access to coastal waters at or in the vicinity of working waterfronts.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI