To amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to establish a conclusive presumption that a State concurs to certain activities, and for other purposes.
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
IntroducedMr. Kiley of California introduced the following bill; which was …
Summary
What This Bill Does
This bill significantly weakens state authority to review and potentially block federal projects in coastal areas. It creates automatic federal approval for four broad categories of coastal zone activities: national security projects, critical infrastructure projects, disaster response activities, and projects in economically distressed areas. Once a federal agency submits a consistency determination for any of these "covered activities," states are legally presumed to have approved it, even if they object. States can raise objections, but those objections cannot delay or stop the project from proceeding.
Who Benefits and How
Multiple industries and federal agencies benefit by avoiding state-level environmental and coastal management reviews that could delay or block their projects. Defense contractors gain easier approval for military installations and security facilities in coastal zones. Energy companies (oil, gas, and electric utilities) benefit substantially because energy infrastructure qualifies as "critical infrastructure" under existing federal definitions, allowing them to build coastal power plants, LNG terminals, pipelines, and other facilities with minimal state review. Telecommunications companies, port operators, water utilities, and real estate developers in economically distressed coastal areas all face reduced regulatory barriers. Federal agencies like the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and FEMA gain streamlined approval authority for their coastal operations.
Who Bears the Burden and How
State environmental agencies and coastal management programs lose most of their authority to review federal coastal projects, even when those projects could harm local ecosystems, fisheries, or tourism. The bill explicitly states that state objections "may not delay or otherwise prevent the activity from proceeding." Local communities in coastal zones lose state-level protection of their interests. Industries that depend on coastal environmental quality—including commercial fishing operations and coastal tourism businesses—face increased environmental risks from accelerated development without state oversight. Environmental consulting firms that provide state review services may lose revenue as the review process is effectively eliminated for covered activities.
Key Provisions
- Establishes a "conclusive presumption" that states approve any federal coastal activity falling into four broad categories, even if states explicitly object
- Defines "critical infrastructure" by reference to existing federal law, which includes 16 sectors such as energy, water, communications, and transportation—creating a very broad exemption
- Allows projects to qualify for automatic approval if located in areas where unemployment is just 1 percentage point above the national average or per capita income is 80% or less of the national average
- Gives the Secretary of Commerce only 30 days to review and potentially nullify the automatic approval; if the Secretary remains silent, approval becomes permanent
- Explicitly prohibits state objections from delaying or stopping approved projects from proceeding
- Covers not just Department of Defense activities but also Department of Homeland Security and intelligence community operations, significantly expanding the "national security" exemption
Evidence Chain:
This summary is derived from the structured analysis below. See "Detailed Analysis" for per-title beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
Primary Purpose
Limits state authority to review federal coastal zone activities by creating automatic approval for national security, critical infrastructure, disaster response, and economically significant projects in low-income or high-unemployment areas
Policy Domains
Legislative Strategy
"Streamline federal project approvals in coastal zones by removing state veto power for broad categories of activities; shifts power from states to federal agencies (particularly Commerce Secretary)"
Likely Beneficiaries
- Federal agencies (DoD, DHS, FEMA, others) - gain ability to proceed with projects without state delays
- Defense contractors - easier approval for military/security installations in coastal areas
- Energy companies - critical infrastructure includes energy sector, easier coastal energy projects
- Infrastructure developers - expedited approval for federally-funded coastal infrastructure
- Telecommunications companies - communications is a critical infrastructure sector
- Transportation companies - ports, maritime facilities qualify as critical infrastructure
Likely Burden Bearers
- State environmental agencies - lose authority to review and object to federal coastal activities
- State coastal management programs - powers significantly curtailed
- Environmental advocacy groups - reduced state-level environmental review of coastal projects
- Local communities in coastal zones - less state protection of local coastal interests
- Fishing and tourism industries - potential environmental impacts from accelerated development
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "coastal_state"
- → Any state with an approved coastal zone management program
- "the_secretary"
- → Secretary of Commerce (administers Coastal Zone Management Act)
- "federal_agency"
- → Any federal department or agency undertaking or approving activities
- "the_administrator"
- → Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Note: No significant scope conflicts - this is a single-section bill with consistent actor definitions throughout
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
A federally authorized/funded activity carried out in an area with low per capita income (≤80% of national average) OR high unemployment (≥1% above national average)
An area where unemployment for the most recent 24-month period is at least 1 percentage point higher than the national average
An area where per capita income is not more than 20% less than (i.e., ≤80% of) the national average
One of four categories: (1) national security activity, (2) critical infrastructure project, (3) disaster recovery/mitigation activity, or (4) activity with significant national/regional economic impact
As defined in section 1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)) - systems and assets vital to national security, economy, public health/safety
Any federally authorized/funded project involving planning, construction, maintenance, or improvement of critical infrastructure or associated facilities/materials
As defined in section 2001 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 601) - includes 16 sectors like energy, water, transportation, communications
Federally authorized/funded activity to prevent, prepare for, respond to, recover from, or mitigate effects of emergencies, major disasters, or FEMA-determined threats
Activity carried out by or on behalf of Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or the intelligence community
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology