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.
Summary
What This Bill Does
H.R.1874 narrows how coastal states can delay certain federal activities under the Coastal Zone Management Act consistency process. For an activity that the federal agency says is tied to national security, critical infrastructure, disaster recovery or mitigation, or significant economic impact in a high-unemployment or low-income area, the bill creates a conclusive presumption that the coastal state concurs with the federal consistency determination or certification. A state objection may not delay the activity once that presumption applies. The Secretary of Commerce can nullify the presumption within 30 days if the activity does not fit the covered categories, and that decision is final and binding. The practical effect is faster clearance for qualifying federal projects and less state leverage in coastal review disputes.
Who Benefits and How
Federal project sponsors benefit because qualifying national security, infrastructure, disaster, and distressed-area projects can move past coastal consistency objections. Critical infrastructure developers benefit because state coastal objections cannot delay covered activity once the presumption applies. Disaster recovery grantees benefit from a faster consistency path for rebuilding and mitigation after major events. Economically distressed coastal communities benefit if qualifying projects reach construction sooner.
Who Bears the Burden and How
Coastal state management agencies lose leverage because objections cannot delay covered activities under the conclusive presumption. The Secretary of Commerce must review whether an activity is covered and issue any nullification within 30 days. Coastal environmental advocates face a reduced state-review window for projects that may affect coastal resources. Local governments opposing a covered project may have less time to use CZMA consistency objections to force mitigation.
Key Provisions
- Creates a conclusive CZMA concurrence presumption for covered federal activities.
- Blocks coastal state objections from delaying covered activities tied to national security, critical infrastructure, disaster recovery, mitigation, or economic distress.
- Allows the Secretary of Commerce to nullify the presumption within 30 days if the activity is not covered.
- Defines significant economic impact using high unemployment, low per-capita income, and related project categories.
Evidence Chain:
This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers.
At a Glance
What This Bill Does
Creates a conclusive Coastal Zone Management Act concurrence presumption for covered federal activities involving national security, critical infrastructure, disaster recovery or mitigation, or major economic distress, while allowing Commerce to nullify the presumption within 30 days if the activity is not covered.
Key Policy Areas
Coastal Management, Infrastructure, Disaster Recovery, Economic Development
Primary Purpose
Creates a conclusive Coastal Zone Management Act concurrence presumption for covered federal activities involving national security, critical infrastructure, disaster recovery or mitigation, or major economic distress, while allowing Commerce to nullify the presumption within 30 days if the activity is not covered.
Policy Domains
Resolution provisions
Identified Gains
Contextual inference, no direct clause citation- Federal project sponsors
- Critical infrastructure developers
- Disaster recovery grantees
- Economically distressed coastal communities
Contextual inference, no direct clause citation
Identified Costs
Contextual inference, no direct clause citation- Coastal state management agencies
- Secretary of Commerce
- Coastal environmental advocates
- Local governments opposing covered projects
Contextual inference, no direct clause citation
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeSponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1032-1033)
Mr. Kiley of California introduced the following bill; which was …
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Stakeholder Effects
cui bono?How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.
Critical infrastructure developers, Federal project sponsors
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
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