Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Overview and Issues for Congress

Contents

• Introduction
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• National Coastal Zone Management Program
• How States and Territories Become Part of the NCZMP
• Why States and Territories May Choose to Join the NCZMP
• Access to Federal Financial Assistance Programs
• Federal Consistency Determination Review
• Issues for Congress
• Changes Along the Coast
• Effectiveness of CZMA Implementation
• Authorization of Appropriations and Funding for CZMA Financial Assistance Programs

Summary

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; P.L. 92-583, 16 U.S.C. §§1451-1466), enacted in 1972 and since amended, set up a national framework for states and territories to consider and manage coastal resources and potential impacts on those resources, and for the federal government to provide financial assistance to support such efforts. As in past Congresses, the 119^th Congress may consider whether to alter—and if so, how—the focus of CZMA activities, the implementation of CZMA, and CZMA's federal assistance authorizations and appropriations. Congress also may decide whether and how to reverse, modify, or codify in statute Any actions taken by the Trump Administration.

Participation and Funding

Under CZMA, if a state or territory chooses to develop a coastal management program (CMP) and the Secretary of Commerce approves such a program, the state or territory becomes a participant and (1) is eligible for federal financial assistance programs and (2) can perform reviews of federal agency actions in coastal areas (known as consistency determination reviews). The Secretary of Commerce has delegated administration of CZMA to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Office for Coastal Management (OCM). States determine the details of their CMPs, including the boundaries of their coastal zones, issues of most interest to the state, and policies to address these issues, among other factors. Thirty-five states and territories (including states surrounding the Great Lakes, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) are eligible to participate. Although all 35 eligible states have at some point chosen to participate, 34 are currently part of the National Coastal Zone Management Program (NCZMP; Alaska has not been a participant since 2011).

Between FY1972 and FY2017, the most current information CRS identified, NOAA allocated over $2 billion (in nominal dollars) in coastal zone management-related financial assistance to participants. During this time, participants received amounts ranging from $13 million to over $106 million in financial assistance, depending on factors such as how long the participant has been a part of NCZMP, the participant's size and population, and the extent of the participant's applications to competitive grant programs.

CZMA Consistency Determinations and Their Certification

CZMA consistency provisions (§307, 16 U.S.C. §1456) require federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal uses or resources to be consistent with policies of a participant's approved CMP. An action may occur in the state's approved coastal zone or in nearby federal or out-of-state waters that may cause interstate coastal effects. Federal agencies or applicants proposing to perform work in or near coastal zones (e.g., a project developer proposing an activity pursuant to a federal permit or using federal funds) must submit a consistency determination to the potentially affected participant, certifying that the actions are consistent with state policies and providing participants the opportunity to review their determinations. Depending on the federal action, federal agencies may or may not move forward with the activity if the participant finds the action is not consistent with the state's policies.

Issues for Congress

The 119^th Congress may consider changes to CZMA. These changes may address issues such as growing population and infrastructure needs and shifting environmental conditions along the coast, questions about the effectiveness of CZMA implementation, and expired authorization of appropriations and funding levels for CZMA financial assistance programs.

Introduction

Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; P.L. 92-583, 16 U.S.C. §§1451-1466) in 1972 and has amended the act 11 times, most recently in 2009.¹ Congress deliberated and passed the act at a time when concern about environmental degradation spurred passage of many of the nation's environmental statutes.² CZMA set up a national framework for states and territories to consider and manage coastal resources. If a state or territory chooses to develop a coastal management program and the program is approved, the state or territory (1) becomes eligible for several federal grants and (2) can perform reviews of federal agency actions in coastal areas (known as federal consistency determination reviews).

Since 1972, many of the trends that called congressional attention to coastal management have continued. According to the 2020 census, coastal shoreline counties were home to 129 million people (nearly 40% of the U.S. population).³ Coastal areas also are home to economic sectors such as fishing, transportation, defense, offshore energy, and tourism and to natural resources such as estuaries, beach systems, and wetlands. The shoreline likely will continue to be affected by pressures to both develop and preserve areas, large-scale events (e.g., hurricanes and tsunamis), and long-term changes (to relative sea level, rainfall, wetland coverage, and air and water temperatures, etc.).⁴ In addition to responding to these pressures, Congress may continue to consider whether CZMA is being effectively implemented and whether changes should be made to CZMA financial assistance programs, including their authorization of appropriations and funding levels.

This report provides a review of CZMA with a specific focus on the National Coastal Zone Management Program (NCZMP). The report discusses how and why states and territories may choose to participate in the national program (namely, to access federal grant programs and to review consistency determinations related to federal actions, such as federally implemented or federally supported projects in coastal areas) and recent issues for Congress. Issues for potential consideration include changes in the environment and development along the coast, effectiveness of federal implementation of CZMA provisions, and authorization of appropriations and funding levels for CZMA financial assistance programs.

Coastal Zone Management Act

Congress enacted CZMA "to establish a national policy and develop a national program for the management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the land and water resources of the nation's coastal zones."⁵ Although CZMA has been amended 11 times, the national policies as declared by Congress have stayed relatively consistent over time. The national policies include

• 1. to preserve, protect, develop, and, if possible, restore or enhance coastal resources;
• 2. to encourage and assist states and territories to effectively exercise their development and management responsibilities in the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development;
• 3. to encourage the preparation of special area management plans to protect significant natural resources, support reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth, and improve protection of life and property;
• 4. to encourage the participation and cooperation of the public, state and local governments, interstate and other regional agencies, and federal agencies to carry out CZMA;
• 5. to encourage coordination and cooperation with and among appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, and international organizations, in collection, analysis, and dissemination of coastal management information and research; and
• 6. to respond to changing circumstances affecting the coastal environment and resources and their management by encouraging states and territories to consider ocean uses that may affect the coastal zone.⁶

Under CZMA, each level of government plays a role in coastal management. At the federal level, the Secretary of Commerce implements CZMA's national policies and provisions; the Secretary has delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Office for Coastal Management (OCM). To participate in the NCZMP, states must adhere to guidelines as set in statute and related regulations. States and territories determine the details of their coastal management programs (CMPs), including the boundaries of their coastal zones, issues of most interest to the state, and policies to address these issues, among other factors. Local governments implement the approved CMPs, often through land use regulations.

National Coastal Zone Management Program

OCM administers CZMA provisions under two national programs, the NCZMP and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS);⁷ this report focuses on the NCZMP. The NCZMP encourages interested coastal states and territories (hereinafter referred to as states) to work with NOAA to develop and implement coastal management programs.⁸ To join, states must develop CMPs pursuant to CZMA and federal regulations. States that join the NCZMP are eligible for several federal grants and have the right to review federal actions for consistency with state coastal policies.

How States and Territories Become Part of the NCZMP

If a state chooses to become part of the NCZMP, it must develop a CMP pursuant CZMA Section 306 and NOAA regulations.⁹ CMPs must contain "a broad class of policies for ... resource protection, management of coastal development, and simplification of governmental processes."¹⁰

The Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) must conclude that the state has completed certain tasks (e.g., included required program elements and coordinated with local and regional agencies) to approve the CMP. Once the Secretary approves the state's CMP, the state is eligible to receive the NCZMP's benefits and is referred to as a participant of the national program.¹¹ The Secretary is expected to evaluate participants at least once every three years to determine whether they are working toward their stated plans.¹²

Thirty-five states and territories (including states surrounding the Great Lakes, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) are eligible to participate. Although all 35 eligible states and territories have at some point chosen to participate, 34 are currently part of the NCZMP.¹³

Why States and Territories May Choose to Join the NCZMP

Participation in the NCZMP provides various benefits to participants, including access to several federal grant programs and the right to review federal actions for consistency with state coastal policies. These provisions have been mainstays of CZMA since its congressional consideration and enactment.¹⁴

Access to Federal Financial Assistance Programs

Coastal states or territories with approved CMPs are eligible to apply for federal financial assistance for coastal zone management. Financial assistance programs have changed over time to reflect congressional priorities and have included funding for program development, coastal energy impacts, and research and technical assistance. Currently, CZMA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide funding related to program administration (Section 306),¹⁵ coastal resource improvement (Section 306A),¹⁶ coastal and estuarine land conservation (Section 307A),¹⁷ coastal enhancement objectives (Section 309),¹⁸ technical assistance (Section 310),¹⁹ and coastal nonpoint pollution control (Section 6217) (Table 1).²⁰ The ability to fund activities under these authorities is subject to the availability of appropriations. Table 1 shows programs that are a part of CZMA; some, but not all, have received federal funding in the last few years. According to NOAA, the agency disbursed a total of $2.1 billion in CZMA financial assistance between FY1975 and FY2017 (nominal dollars; Figure 1).²¹ NOAA did not provide an annual disbursement amount for that time frame; for comparison, Congress provided $85 million for coastal zone management grants in FY2017. Since then, Congress has appropriated between $75.0 million and $81.5 million each year for FY2018 through FY2024, for a total of $548 million, again in nominal dollars.²² Congress provided an appropriation to NOAA broadly for FY2025 but did not allocate a specific amount for the grants. CRS requested information about NOAA's disbursement of FY2018 through FY2025 funding but did not receive it in time for this report.

Figure 1. Amounts Disbursed by CZMA Grant Program, FY1972-FY2017 (nominal dollars)

Source: CRS using data from NOAA's Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, October 29, 2018. CRS has requested but was unable to obtain updated information as of the date of this report. Notes: Grant programs discontinued by Congress, such as Section 309 interstate grants, are not included in this figure. NOAA has combined funding information for Sections 306 and 306A grants. Section 307A grants include funds received from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) reserved for use in Great Lakes states only. A portion of Section 307A funds were from GLRI in FY2010-FY2012. All Section 307A funds were from GLRI in FY2013-FY2017.

Federal Consistency Determination Review

CZMA Section 307 requires federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal uses or resources to be consistent with the enforceable policies of a participant's approved CMP.²³ These actions may occur in the state's approved coastal zone or in federal or out-of-state waters (which may cause interstate coastal effects). Federal agencies or applicants proposing to perform certain actions with a federal nexus (e.g., a project developer that would perform work pursuant to a federal permit or using federal funds) must submit a consistency determination or consistency certification (hereinafter referred to as a consistency determination), depending on the federal action, to the potentially affected participant confirming that proposed actions are consistent with the state's coastal policies.²⁴ The participant then completes a consistency determination review.

Statutes and NOAA regulation have defined several terms related to consistency determinations and reviews, including the following:

• Applicant is "any individual, public or private corporation, partnership, association, or other entity organized or existing under the laws of any nation, State, or any State, regional, or local government, who, following management program approval, either files an application for a required individual federal license or permit, or who files a consistency certification for a required general federal license or permit … to conduct an activity affecting any coastal use or resource."²⁵
• Coastal zone is defined as the coastal waters and adjacent shorelands, strongly influenced by each other, and includes islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends in Great Lakes waters to the international boundary and in other areas seaward to the outer limit of the state title and ownership under various acts, such as the Submerged Lands Act.²⁶ The zone extends inland from the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shorelands and to control those geographical areas that are likely to be affected by or vulnerable to sea level rise.²⁷ Identification of the coastal zone boundaries is a required part of an approved CMP.²⁸
• Effect on coastal use or resource refers to "any reasonable foreseeable effect on any coastal use or resource resulting from a federal agency activity or federal license or permit activity," including federal assistance to state and local governments.²⁹ Effects may be environmental or impact coastal use; may be direct or secondary; and may result from the incremental impact of past, current, or future actions.³⁰ The determination of whether the action will have a reasonably foreseeable effect is also known as the effects test.
• Enforceable policies are "state policies which are legally binding through constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or judicial or administrative decisions, by which a state exerts control over private and public land and water uses and natural resources of the coastal zone."³¹
• Federal actions include federal agency activities, federal license or permit activities, outer continental shelf plans, and federal assistance to state and local governments.³² NOAA requires participants to submit lists of federal actions that are subject to consistency determination reviews and their general geographic areas.³³
• Interstate coastal effect refers to any reasonably foreseeable effect resulting from a federal action occurring in one state on any coastal use or resource of another state that has an approved CMP. Effects may be environmental or impact coastal use; may be direct or secondary; and may result from the incremental impact of past, current, or future actions.³⁴ A state must identify a list of federal actions in other states for approval by NOAA in order to perform interstate consistency determination reviews.³⁵

Participant reviews of federal actions are context-specific and depend on the location and action in question, with different rights and responsibilities assigned to the federal agency, applicants, and participants involved. The consistency determination review process—such as which party determines the foreseeable effects, the length of the participant review period, the effect of a participant's objection to the action, and the available conflict resolution or appeals options—depends on the federal action in question (Table 2).³⁶

As noted above, resolutions to participant objections to consistency determinations depend on the federal action in question, as follows:

• Federal agency activities: If a participant objects to a federal agency's consistency determination, the participant may request mediation from the Secretary of Commerce or OCM. Regardless of the mediation outcomes, the federal agency may proceed with its activities if
• the agency provides a legal basis for being consistent to the maximum extent practicable,³⁷ or
• the agency has concluded that its proposed action is fully consistent with the participant's enforceable policies.³⁸
• Federal license or permit activities, outer continental shelf plans, and federal assistance to state and local governments: If the participant objects to the consistency determination, the federal agency cannot authorize the action unless the Secretary of Commerce overrides the objection.³⁹ The applicant may appeal to the Secretary, who then will review the administrative record and may override a participant's objection if they find that the action is consistent with the objectives of CZMA or is necessary for national security.⁴⁰ For example, in 2020, the Secretary of Commerce overrode New York's objection to an applicant's consistency determination, finding that the project "is necessary in the interest of national security."⁴¹
  

According to NOAA, participants review thousands of federal consistency determinations each year, with more than half of the reviews being for federal license or permit activities.⁴² Remaining reviews are, in descending order, federal agency activities, federal assistance activities, and outer continental shelf plans.⁴³ Over time, participants have concurred with around 95% of the federal consistency determinations they have reviewed.⁴⁴ The high concurrence rate may indicate that participants, federal agencies, and applicants often have negotiated project modifications or alternatives before the formal review process.⁴⁵

Since the first CMP was approved in 1978, 50 consistency decisions have been subject to secretarial appeals (as of January 2025, Figure 2).⁴⁶ Of the 50 appeals, the Secretary overrode participant objections in 17 cases and agreed with the participant in the other 33 cases. An additional 68 appeals have been settled or withdrawn after they reached the secretarial level but before a determination was made, and 34 additional requests for appeals were dismissed or overridden on procedural grounds.⁴⁷ As of January 2025, one appeal was pending before the Secretary of Commerce.⁴⁸

Figure 2. CZMA Consistency Determination Objection Appeals to the Secretary of Commerce, 1972-January 2025

Source: NOAA, Office for Coastal Management, Appeals to the Secretary of Commerce Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), January 13, 2025, https://perma.cc/MZU5-EU8F.

Issues for Congress

Various concerns related to CZMA have been considered by Congress and have been recently raised by government agencies and various coastal stakeholders. Some of these concerns include the effects of natural and man-made changes on the coast, the effectiveness of CZMA implementation, and CZMA financial assistance authorizations of appropriations and funding levels. These discussions are occurring within the broader context of the 119^th Congress and the Trump Administration. The 119^th Congress may consider whether—and if so, how—to reverse, modify, or codify in statute actions of the Trump Administration.

Changes Along the Coast

Congress may continue to examine CZMA in light of continued population and infrastructure growth along the coast, as well as coastal hazards such as flooding and erosion. According to the 2020 census, coastal shoreline counties were home to 129 million people (nearly 40% of the U.S. population).⁴⁹ According to NOAA, the marine economy, covering the U.S. oceans and Great Lakes, accounted for 2.3 million jobs and contributed $423 billion to the total U.S. gross domestic product in 2021.⁵⁰ Much of the population and infrastructure growth has occurred in shoreline communities amid ecosystems such as beaches, reefs, sea grasses, wetlands, estuaries, and deltas. The combination of built and natural systems has been and likely will continue to be affected by changes in sea level (and its impacts, such as higher tides, greater storm surge, saltwater intrusion, erosion, etc.), local rainfall, water and air temperatures, and ocean acidification, among other factors.⁵¹

Some scholars have argued for substantial revision or alterations to CZMA to account for changes along the coast.⁵² For example, one suggested changing CZMA financial assistance programs to focus primarily on actions to protect and restore natural systems, acquire wetlands with greatest capacity to adapt to sea level rise, and address sea level rise and biodiversity loss.⁵³ Another advocated amending CZMA to increase the use of science in coastal management decisions and more acutely focus on low-income coastal communities.⁵⁴ Still another encouraged participants to more fully include the fishing industry in their coastal management planning regarding offshore wind;⁵⁵ Congress could amend CZMA to require participants to do so. Others may argue that CZMA is working as intended and should not be amended to address new or novel concerns. Others, including the Trump Administration, are looking broadly across the federal government for opportunities to reduce, rather than expand, federal financial assistance.

Members of the 119^th and earlier Congresses have introduced several bills with provisions to amend CZMA. For example, in the 118^th Congress, Members proposed bills with CZMA provisions focused on climate change preparedness and response and "working waterfronts," including the creation of new financial assistance programs.⁵⁶ Members reintroduced the bill focused on working waterfronts in the 119^th Congress.⁵⁷ Other proposals in the 118^th Congress would have expanded CZMA financial assistance programs to the District of Columbia and Indian tribes currently not eligible to apply to the grant programs.⁵⁸ One stakeholder argued, however, that an identical previously introduced tribal bill, if enacted, would represent a "meager response at best compared with the scale of the need."⁵⁹ Another bill would have amended the Section 307A grant program, renamed it the Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program, and placed an added emphasis on supporting National Estuarine Research Reserves, allowing nongovernmental organizations to participate, and accounting for the benefits of these areas for long-term carbon dioxide storage, among other changes. It also would have authorized appropriations for the program at $60 million per year through FY2028.⁶⁰ This last bill was the only CZMA-related proposal to be considered in a hearing in the 118^th Congress; witnesses were generally supportive of the bill.⁶¹

Effectiveness of CZMA Implementation

Congress may examine how the Secretary of Commerce and NOAA have implemented CZMA and whether changes to the agency, the law, or the law's implementation are necessary. Various entities have evaluated the effectiveness of CZMA implementation, specifically the NCZMP, since the law's enactment. Evaluations have noted a range of issues, from monitoring and measuring the success of the program as a whole to issues concerning specific financial assistance programs. Some stakeholders also have proposed changes to the types of activities considered by participants in their consistency determination reviews.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported several issues with NOAA's implementation of CZMA, most recently in 2014 and 2016. The 2014 report focused on limitations to the coastal zone management performance measurement system and the agency's limited use of collected performance data, among other topics.⁶² NOAA agreed with the recommendations and implemented the recommended actions by November 2016.⁶³ CRS identified guidance for the performance measurement system, updated in October 2023, but was not able to obtain information about the status of and trends in performance measures as of the date of this report.⁶⁴ In a separate 2016 study, GAO surveyed state coastal zone managers about the actions NOAA was taking under CZMA to support state efforts to make marine coastal ecosystems more resilient to climate change; GAO at that time found that state coastal zone managers "generally had positive views of the actions NOAA [was] taking."⁶⁵

Some stakeholders have argued that the implementation of some CZMA programs has been inadequate. For example, some have questioned whether Section 6217 provisions have been properly implemented. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments Act (P.L. 101-508) amended CZMA to establish the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP). The CNPCP requires coastal states with approved CMPs to reduce polluted runoff to coastal waters through coastal nonpoint pollution control programs that include specific land-based measures. NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly administer the CNPCP. Under Section 6217, participants that fail to submit "approvable [CNPCP] programs" lose a portion of their allotted funding under CZMA Section 306.⁶⁶ Most participants received conditional approval between 1997 and 1998, and the majority have since received final approval. However, three states have yet to receive final approval: Hawaii, Mississippi, and Oregon.⁶⁷ In 2009 and 2016, a private organization sued NOAA and EPA for continuing to grant funds to Oregon and Washington, respectively.⁶⁸ Washington received final approval of its program in 2024. Some experts have advocated for Congress to amend CZMA to better address coastal nonpoint pollution, such as agricultural nutrients, to reduce the incidence and extent of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.⁶⁹ Others may argue that these responsibilities should fall primarily to the states and local governments.

Some stakeholders have advocated for changes to the types of activities that undergo participant consistency determination reviews. For instance, a Member of Congress introduced legislation in the 119^th Congress to add a "conclusive presumption" of consistency between certain federal actions and participants' policies.⁷⁰ In the bill, the specified federal actions or covered activities are defined as "a national security activity," "a critical infrastructure project," "a disaster recovery or mitigation activity," or "an activity with a significant national or regional economic impact."⁷¹ Under the legislation, the participant would be able to object or challenge the activity, but such a challenge may "not delay or otherwise prevent the activity from proceeding." In a statement about the bill, the bill sponsor noted that the bill would "expedite important coastal activities" and highlighted concerns regarding state coastal management decisions in California.⁷² Some stakeholders have opposed the bill, stating that it "would muzzle the voices of communities, small businesses, and states to speak out about federal government actions along the coast that affect their lives and livelihoods" and that it "attacks coastal states' rights to review federal actions under the CZMA."⁷³

Authorization of Appropriations and Funding for CZMA Financial Assistance Programs

Although authorizations of appropriations for CZMA financial assistance programs expired years ago, recent Congresses have continued to appropriate funding for the programs. CZMA coastal zone management financial assistance programs were last authorized for appropriations in the following years:⁷⁴

• Section 306 (Administrative Grants): FY1999;⁷⁵
• Section 306A (Coastal Resource Improvement Grants): FY1999;
• Section 307A (Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program): FY2013;⁷⁶
• Section 309 (Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants): FY1999;
• Section 310 (Technical Assistance): no authorization of appropriations; and
• Section 6217 (Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program): FY1995.⁷⁷

Some Members of Congress during previous Congresses have proposed to reauthorize and increase authorizations of appropriations for several CZMA financial assistance programs. For example, one bill in the 118^th Congress would have updated the amount and timeframe of the authorization of appropriations for an amended version of the Section 307A program.⁷⁸

Various stakeholders have argued for changes to appropriated amounts for the CZMA financial assistance programs. For example, the Biden Administration had requested $78.5 million for the coastal zone management grants for FY2024 and $81.5 million for FY2025;⁷⁹ other administrations, such as the first Trump Administration in FY2021, had proposed to eliminate all coastal zone management grants.⁸⁰ In FY2024, Congress appropriated $81.5 million to NOAA for coastal zone management grants.⁸¹ Congress provided additional funding to states and territories under Section 307A and 310 grant programs for FY2022 through FY2026 under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).⁸² Notwithstanding the funding from IIJA and IRA, for FY2025, Congress decreased NOAA's overall appropriation in P.L. 119-4 compared with appropriations provided in FY2024. Congress did not provide line office or budget line item information as part of the law or accompanying language; thus, as of the date of this report, it is unclear how coastal zone management grants may be impacted.⁸³ In addition, the Trump Administration has not released its FY2026 budget request. It also has paused or terminated certain categories of IIJA funding through Executive Order 14154, "Unleashing American Energy."⁸⁴

Some stakeholders have contended that financial assistance to states from the NCZMP is important and support more funding. For example, in a 2016 GAO survey, state coastal zone managers indicated that "financial assistance provided by NOAA [was] critical" and that "the amount of financial assistance available [was] insufficient to address states' needs in implementing projects."⁸⁵ Another stakeholder group in 2024 stated that the "federal government needs to provide more consistent financial … support to states" and that "many states would be further along with coastal management programs if federal partners strategically committed more time and resources to assisting local efforts."⁸⁶ NOAA officials also have stated that financial assistance for coastal zone management is in high demand. For example, the NOAA Regional Coastal Resilience grant program, administered under Section 310, received 132 applications requesting $105 million in FY2015; $4.5 million was available for grants.⁸⁷ One group has noted that while funding for coastal zone management financial assistance generally increased nominally from FY2002 through FY2023, funding levels have "not kept pace with inflation or the increased costs of staffing and operating programs."⁸⁸ They claim that "coastal states and territories have identified that annual appropriations would need to be over $134 [million] in FY2025 … to fully address these demands." Congress could evaluate increasing appropriations for some or all of the CZMA financial assistance programs given these stakeholders' concerns, maintaining the status quo on funding, or reducing funding for these programs. Congress also may consider directing NOAA to continue its recent allocation strategy of funding certain financial assistance programs or making changes to provide funds to other programs, such as Section 307A and Section 6217, that have not received annual appropriations in recent years.

Alternatively, some Members of Congress and stakeholders have argued no appropriations should be provided for programs with expired authorizations of appropriations, such as CZMA financial assistance programs. Under House and Senate rules, authorizations of appropriations are required to be enacted prior to House consideration of relevant appropriations bills; Members may raise a point of order, which may be waived.⁸⁹ Some stakeholders contend that Congress should enforce the rules to a greater degree and refrain from appropriating funding toward programs with expired authorizations of appropriations.⁹⁰ Some Members of Congress in the 118^th Congress proposed legislation that would have reduced appropriations for, or terminated altogether, programs with expired authorizations of appropriations.⁹¹

Footnotes