H.R.1874 - 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. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1874 proposes amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The bill aims to establish a conclusive presumption that a state concurs with certain federal activities within its coastal zone under specific conditions. This presumption applies to consistency determinations, development project findings, and certifications related to activities authorized or funded by the federal government.
Expected Effects
The bill would streamline federal projects in coastal zones by limiting a state's ability to object to certain activities. It introduces a 30-day window for the Secretary to nullify the presumption of concurrence if the activity is not a 'covered activity'. This could accelerate project timelines, particularly for national security, critical infrastructure, disaster recovery, and economically significant projects.
Potential Benefits
- Faster approval of critical infrastructure projects in coastal zones.
- Expedited disaster recovery and mitigation efforts.
- Streamlined national security activities.
- Potential for economic growth in areas with low per capita income or high unemployment.
- Reduced bureaucratic delays in federal projects.
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced state control over coastal zone management.
- Potential for environmental damage due to expedited project approvals.
- Limited opportunity for public input and participation in decision-making.
- Possible disregard for local concerns and priorities.
- Increased federal overreach into state affairs.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the U.S. Constitution is complex. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate commerce and provide for the general welfare, which could justify federal involvement in coastal zone management. However, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, raising concerns about federal overreach into state jurisdiction over coastal resources. The conclusive presumption clause could be viewed as infringing upon state sovereignty.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).