Coastal storm risk mgmt.; Office of Commonwealth Resilience to study costs of feasibility studies.
Summary
SB 1337 directs the Office of Commonwealth Resilience to study how Virginia should share the nonfederal costs of coastal storm risk management (CSRM) feasibility studies and related plan implementation between the state and participating localities. The study must look at how other states apportion these costs and then develop a recommended Virginia methodology and criteria for cost-sharing.
The bill also requires the recommended approach to encourage projects that are community-scale and regional-scale, protect and enhance natural and nature-based solutions, address socioeconomic inequities, and improve equity in flood resilience and preparedness. In addition, the Office must consider whether Virginia should create a stand-alone state fund to help manage requests for the state’s share of CSRM nonfederal sponsor costs. The Office of Commonwealth Resilience must complete the study by November 30, 2026, and the Chief Resilience Officer must report findings and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by December 31, 2026.
Impact
The bill does not directly change existing coastal resilience or flood-control statutes, but it creates a new state study and reporting mandate for the Office of Commonwealth Resilience. It may influence future appropriations, state-local cost-sharing policy, and the structure of Virginia’s participation in federal coastal storm risk management projects, including whether a dedicated state fund is established. The bill also ties the recommended methodology to existing resilience priorities in § 10.1-658 of the Code of Virginia, potentially shaping future implementation of those priorities.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It was reported from the Rules Committee unanimously, passed a constitutional reading with only one dissenting vote, and then passed the Senate unanimously on third reading. The later tabling in Rules appears procedural rather than reflective of opposition, and there is no committee transcript indicating substantive controversy.
Contention
Because there are no committee transcripts, no detailed policy objections are recorded in the provided materials. The main policy questions embedded in the bill are how much of CSRM feasibility and implementation costs should be borne by the state versus localities, and whether Virginia should create a dedicated state fund for these costs. Another possible point of discussion is the bill’s emphasis on equity, natural and nature-based solutions, and regional planning, which may affect how future projects are prioritized and funded.