Senate committee backs bill to let localities seek proactive beach erosion designations
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The environment committee reported SB 636 favorably after sponsor Senator Leake said it creates forward-looking criteria for ‘‘critically eroded beach’’ designations so communities can plan maintenance before damage accrues; witnesses and senators raised funding concerns about a limited recurring state pot.
Senator Leake, sponsor of Senate Bill 636, told the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources the bill creates an additional pathway for counties and municipalities to obtain ‘‘critically eroded beach’’ (CEB) or Area of Critical State Concern designations so shoreline maintenance can occur before repeated emergency repairs.
Leake said current law gives the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) authority to track beach and dune erosion using retrospective modeling — ‘‘a 25 year period’’ probability approach — and that SB 636 instead takes a ‘‘forward looking’’ stance to make more miles eligible for planned projects and for federal and state cost-sharing, including alignment with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA programs.
Senator Smith, who does not represent a coastal community, asked whether the bill would create an unfunded mandate or new staffing obligations for local governments. Leake responded that designation under the bill is voluntary and ‘‘they're not required to do that after this’’; existing CEBs remain unaffected and retain current eligibility for state and federal programs.
Senator Harrell, who represents an East Coast district, noted the Legislature currently appropriates about $50,000,000 annually for maintenance and asked whether the fund would grow if more miles qualify. Leake said the bill ‘‘does not tie specific funding to the policy legislation’’ and that funding levels are set through the appropriations process, though he expressed a preference to expand recurring dollars.
Pepper Ucchino, president of the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, gave information to the committee and emphasized the fiscal gap between recurring appropriations and requests: he said last year local government requests aggregated $123,000,000 while the recurring pot was $50,000,000 and that current requests have risen to $184,000,000; he added support for SB 636 so long as the pathway is ‘‘an alternative and not a substitute.’'
The sponsor waived closing remarks. The committee called the roll and reported SB 636 favorably.
The committee recorded no specific change to appropriations in the bill; next steps will depend on the appropriations process.