HB254, the Supporting Inclusive Community Adaptation Act, expands Maryland’s climate resilience and community engagement efforts within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The bill requires DNR to facilitate meaningful community participation in project planning and development, including through meetings, community liaisons, and partnerships with other agencies, local governments, and nonprofits. It also authorizes those partners to compensate individuals for participation in planning processes, subject to the terms of the agreement.
The bill creates the Resilience Through Restoration Capital Grant Fund, a special nonlapsing fund administered by DNR to provide grants to state agencies, local jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations for nature-based restoration projects. Eligible projects include shoreline restoration, floodplain restoration, wetland restoration, dune and beach restoration, green infrastructure, beneficial use of dredged material, and other habitat-restoring projects that reduce climate vulnerabilities and improve resilience for communities and public lands. The fund may also support adaptive management and administrative costs, and its interest earnings are credited back to the fund.
HB254 also directs DNR to improve access to climate planning tools by October 1, 2027, through a centralized website, streamlined guidance, and training for local jurisdictions. These resources are intended to help local governments incorporate climate adaptation into comprehensive plans and other planning documents. In addition, the bill requires DNR to assess climate risks on lands it owns, leases, or manages, and to identify and prioritize mitigation, adaptation, and resilience projects on those lands, with a deadline to implement the requirements on two coastal and two inland properties by December 31, 2035.
The bill further amends the Shore Erosion Control Construction Loan Fund by changing how interest earnings are treated, clarifying that each property owner in a multi-owner project is treated separately for loan calculations, and allowing DNR to partially forgive loans under ecologically based, performance-based, and equity-based criteria. It also exempts both the new grant fund and the shore erosion loan fund from the general rule that interest on state money flows to the General Fund.
Overall, the bill appears to have broad legislative support, passing the House 94-34 and the Senate 24-10. The vote margins suggest general agreement with the bill’s climate resilience goals, but the recorded opposition indicates some concern about the scope of the new grant program, the use of state resources, or the discretion given to DNR in administering grants and loan forgiveness. No committee transcript was provided, so specific arguments for or against the bill are not available.
HB254 adds multiple new provisions to the Natural Resources Article and amends the State Finance and Procurement Article to create a new grant program, require community engagement in DNR project planning, establish climate-planning support tools for local governments, and expand DNR’s responsibilities on state-managed lands. It also changes the Shore Erosion Control Construction Loan Fund by allowing partial loan forgiveness and redirecting interest earnings back to the fund, while exempting both funds from the general interest-crediting rule that would otherwise send earnings to the General Fund. The bill affects DNR, local jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations, property owners seeking shore erosion assistance, and state lands managers.
The overall sentiment around HB254 was favorable, as reflected in its successful passage in both chambers with comfortable margins. The bill’s framing around resilience, restoration, and inclusive participation suggests it was viewed as a proactive climate adaptation measure. At the same time, the presence of notable minority opposition in both the House and Senate indicates that some legislators were not fully supportive of the new spending authority, administrative mandates, or the expanded discretion given to DNR.
The main points of contention appear to be the creation and funding of a new special grant fund, the requirement that DNR facilitate community participation and potentially support compensation for participants, and the authority to forgive shore erosion loans based on criteria developed by the department. Opponents likely questioned the fiscal impact, the breadth of agency discretion, or the policy approach to climate adaptation and shoreline management, while supporters likely emphasized equity, local input, and resilience benefits. Because no committee transcript was provided, the specific positions of individual legislators or stakeholder groups are not documented in the record here.