Natural Resources - Riverine Siting and Design Criteria - Requirements
HB0779 would expand Maryland’s Coast Smart framework to include riverine flooding protections for certain State- and State-funded local capital projects. Beginning July 1, 2028, covered projects that are at least 50% funded with State funds and cost $500,000 or more would have to comply with riverine siting and design criteria when constructing new structures or highway facilities, and when reconstructing substantially damaged structures. The bill directs that these criteria be designed to address 500-year flood impacts and to require structures to be built or rebuilt so they are not inundated by a 500-year flood event.
The bill also requires the Coast Smart Council, working with the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Transportation, to develop the riverine criteria by July 1, 2027. Those criteria must identify the data, models, methods, and maps used to define 500-year flood events in riverine areas, provide planning and construction guidance, and establish a waiver process for government units that cannot comply. The Council must then review the criteria every five years starting in 2032, and the Department must report the results to the relevant legislative committees.
HB0779 would amend the Natural Resources Article to add a new Part VII on riverine siting and design criteria and to rename the subtitle to include riverine flooding. It would impose new planning and construction standards on certain State and local capital projects, particularly those involving structures and highway facilities, and would require reconstruction of substantially damaged structures to meet the new flood-resilience standards. The bill also expands the responsibilities of the Coast Smart Council to develop, implement, review, and update these criteria, and it creates a reporting obligation to the General Assembly.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a climate resilience and flood-mitigation bill, with support from a broad group of delegates spanning environmental, local government, and infrastructure interests. There are no recorded votes or committee transcript snippets in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or debate in the available record. The overall sentiment suggested by the bill’s sponsors and structure is favorable toward strengthening flood preparedness for public capital projects.
The main likely points of contention are the cost and scope of the new requirements, especially for local governments and agencies responsible for capital projects. The bill applies only to projects with at least 50% State funding and a minimum cost threshold, which suggests an attempt to limit burden, but compliance could still affect project design, timelines, and budgets. Another potential issue is the technical challenge of defining and mapping 500-year flood events in riverine areas, as well as how broad the waiver process should be for projects that cannot practically meet the standards. No specific opposing arguments are included in the provided record.