Overview
Title
To amend the National Oceans and Coastal Security Act to make improvements to that Act, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7106 is a bill that wants to improve how we take care of the ocean and coastline. It suggests better ways to spend money on protecting the ocean and coast, so everyone like states and tribes can help make sure they stay clean and safe.
Summary AI
H.R. 7106 proposes amendments to the National Oceans and Coastal Security Act to enhance protection and sustainable use of ocean and coastal resources. It introduces definitions, adjusts funding allocation, and expands eligible uses of funds for projects related to mitigating impacts of climate change, among other objectives. This bill emphasizes conservation efforts through grants for various stakeholders, including states, tribes, and organizations, and aims to better manage coastal development and resilience against natural hazards.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "National Oceans and Coastal Security Improvements Act of 2024," aims to amend the existing National Oceans and Coastal Security Act. Its primary objective is to enhance programs related to the conservation, restoration, and protection of ocean and coastal resources. It details the allocation of funds, defines eligible uses, and stipulates the entities qualified to receive grants. Moreover, the bill emphasizes grant distribution criteria, administrative processes, and establishes reporting requirements, including the need to account for "blue carbon benefits"—the carbon stored by coastal ecosystems. The bill proposes an annual allocation of $200 million from 2025 to 2029.
Significant Issues
The bill introduces several complexities and areas of potential concern:
Complex Fund Allocation: The process outlined for allocating funds involves multiple layers and criteria that could lead to administrative inefficiencies. This complex distribution system may require significant oversight to ensure funds are properly managed and effectively utilized.
Geographical Bias in Funding: The formula for distributing grant funds is based on factors like tidal shoreline miles and coastal population data, which could skew funding towards states with longer coastlines and larger coastal populations. This approach might neglect the ecological and socio-economic needs of smaller states or those with less population density.
Ambiguous Definitions: Many terms used in the bill, such as "coastal county," depend on references to external documents not universally accessible or understood, potentially leading to confusion about eligibility for projects or funding.
Stringent Compliance Requirements: The requirement for grant-funded programs to adhere to standard procurement rules could pose challenges for smaller entities, such as coastal Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. These communities might struggle with the administrative burden, which could limit their participation.
Fixed Funding Levels: The bill allocates fixed funding amounts annually without adjusting for inflation or evolving financial needs, potentially diminishing the funds' efficacy over time.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
Broadly, the bill endeavors to advance the protection and sustainable use of America's coastal and ocean resources, which hold ecological, economic, and social significance. It could enhance resilience against climate change impacts, such as sea level rise and erosion, supporting coastal communities and economies. The specific allocations for activities like habitat restoration, infrastructure adaptation, and strategic relocation are poised to benefit communities facing the greatest environmental challenges.
However, the bill's funding criteria might favor larger coastal states, potentially disadvantaging smaller states or less populated areas in need of support. Coastal Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations could face difficulties accessing funds due to compliance and administrative requirements, possibly limiting their ability to implement beneficial projects.
The embedded prohibition on using funds for litigation and lobbying ensures that the focus remains on tangible conservation efforts, although it could also restrict advocacy and policy engagement initiatives that might otherwise aid broader conservation goals.
In conclusion, while the bill offers significant opportunities to improve coastal and oceanic conservation efforts, its implementation will require careful oversight and might necessitate future amendments to address the highlighted complexities and ensure equitable and effective use of funds.
Financial Assessment
Summary of Financial Allocations in the Bill
H.R. 7106 addresses funding and expenditures aimed at improving the management of ocean and coastal resources. The bill outlines the financial allocations from the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund. Specifically, it mandates that no more than 5 percent of the funds may be used by the Administrator and the Foundation for administrative expenses each fiscal year. Any money beyond $50,000,000 is to be divided such that at least $50,000,000 is used for the Foundation's grants, with the remaining funds allocated 80 percent for the Administrator's grants and 20 percent for additional grants by the Foundation.
Additionally, the bill proposes an annual funding of $200,000,000 to carry out its objectives from fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
Relation to Identified Issues
One issue with the financial allocations is the administrative complexity referenced in Section 2(c). The complexity arises from the multi-tiered distribution criteria which require significant oversight to ensure compliance and effectiveness in allocation. This could lead to administrative inefficiencies, potentially diverting focus away from the primary goals of the fund.
The allocation method in Section 906(b)(1) that bases funds on tidal shoreline miles and population introduces potential biases. It potentially favors larger states with extensive shorelines and populations, as mentioned, which may result in unequal distribution of resources. This approach could overlook the specific ecological or socio-economic needs of smaller or less-populated states, as larger states could absorb disproportionate amounts of the allocation.
Additionally, the fixed annual funding of $200,000,000 might not accommodate inflation or variable financial needs over the designated period (2025–2029). This could lead to decreased purchasing power over the years, potentially limiting the effectiveness of funds in addressing emerging or evolving challenges in coastal and oceanic environments.
Considerations for Stakeholders
For stakeholders, particularly smaller entities like coastal Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the requirement of adhering to standard procurement rules (as per Section 906(b)(3)(D)) might be burdensome. This could create barriers to accessing grants despite the bill's intention to include diverse stakeholders in resource management efforts.
The defined percentages and caps could simplify some aspects of financial management but could also lead to unintended consequences, such as inefficiencies or inequities among recipients. Stakeholders must understand how changing environmental and financial conditions might impact the effectiveness of this fixed allocation structure.
Issues
The allocation of funds in Section 2(c) may lead to administrative inefficiencies due to complexity in distribution criteria, which could affect the effectiveness of funding usage and warrant significant administrative oversight.
The definition of 'coastal county' in Section 902(3) depends on a specific NOAA document that may not be clear to all stakeholders, leading to potential ambiguity in identifying eligible areas for funding or projects.
Section 906(b)(1) allocates funds based on tidal shoreline miles and population, potentially favoring larger coastal states, which may lead to an imbalance in funding distribution not accounting for ecological or socio-economic needs of smaller or less-populated states.
Section 905's lack of specific criteria or limitations on grant awards may result in wasteful or misdirected spending, as there are broad descriptions that could allow for expenditures on programs not tightly aligned with the bill's intended focus areas.
The requirement for compliance with standard procurement rules in Section 906(b)(3)(D) may be overly burdensome for smaller entities like coastal Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, potentially hindering their ability to participate in grant programs.
Section 908 provides fixed annual funding amounts without adjustment for inflation or changing financial needs, which could decrease the purchasing power of the allocated funds over the specified years.
Many of the definitions in Section 902 require cross-referencing with external documents or acts, potentially complicating understanding and implementation for stakeholders not familiar with those references.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act provides its official name, which is the “National Oceans and Coastal Security Improvements Act of 2024.”
2. Improvements to National Oceans and Coastal Security Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to the National Oceans and Coastal Security Act in this bill revise definitions, funding, and procedures related to coastal and ocean conservation. It specifies how grants are to be distributed among eligible states and entities, outlines eligible uses of funds, prohibits the use of funds for litigation or lobbying, and establishes reporting requirements for blue carbon benefits, while allocating $200 million annually from 2025 to 2029 to carry out these initiatives.
Money References
- (c) Expenditures.—Section 904(d) (16 U.S.C. 7503(d)) is amended to read as follows: “(d) Expenditures.—Of the amounts deposited in, or appropriated or otherwise made available to, the Fund for each fiscal year— “(1) not more than a total of 5 percent may be used by the Administrator and the Foundation for administrative expenses to carry out this title, which such amount shall be divided between the Administrator and the Foundation pursuant to a documented agreement between the Administrator and the Foundation; and “(2) if the total of such amounts is— “(A) $50,000,000 or less, any remaining amounts may only be used by the Foundation to award grants under section 906(c); or “(B) $50,000,000 or more— “(i) at least $50,000,000 shall be used by the Foundation to award grants under section 906(c); and “(ii) of any remaining amounts— “(I) 80 percent of such amounts may be used by the Administrator to award grants under section 906(b); and “(II) 20 percent of such amounts may be used by the Foundation to award grants under section 906(c).”.
- (3) NATIONAL GRANTS FOR OCEANS, COASTS, AND GREAT LAKES.—Section 906(c) (16 U.S.C. 7505(c)) is amended— (A) in paragraph (1), by striking “The Administrator and the Foundation” and inserting “The Foundation, in consultation with the Administrator,”; and (B) in paragraph (2)— (i) in subparagraph (B)— (I) in clause (ii), by striking “and” at the end; (II) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (v); and (III) by inserting after clause (ii) the following: “(iii) nonprofit organizations; “(iv) Indian Tribes, Indigenous communities, and Native Hawaiian organizations; and”; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: “(C) CAP ON FUNDING.—The amount of a grant awarded under this subsection shall not count toward the cap on funding to coastal States, coastal Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations through grants awarded under subsection (b).”. (f) Annual report.—Section 907 (16 U.S.C. 7506) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by striking “Subject to subsection (c), beginning” and inserting “Beginning”; and (2) in subsection (b)— (A) in paragraph (2), by striking “and” at the end; (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “(4) an estimate of blue carbon benefits.”. (g) Funding.—Section 908 (16 U.S.C. 7507) is amended by striking “such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019 for this title” and inserting “$200,000,000 to carry out this title for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029”.
902. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section provides definitions for terms used in the bill, such as “Administrator,” which refers to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and “blue carbon benefits,” which includes carbon stored by ecosystems like mangroves and seagrasses. It also defines terms like “coastal county,” “coastal Indian Tribe,” and “coastal State,” along with specific meanings for organizational and fund-related terms like “Foundation” and “Fund.”
905. Eligible uses Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines how funds can be used to support programs focused on protecting and restoring ocean and coastal resources. It specifies eligible activities, such as addressing environmental changes like sea level rise and supporting infrastructure adaptation, while prohibiting the use of funds for litigation and lobbying activities.