An Act to amend and reenact §§ 10.1-704 and 28.2-100 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 28.2-104.2, relating to beneficial use of dredged material.
HB52 establishes a statewide policy favoring the beneficial use of dredged material, particularly material dredged from the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, when that use is feasible and consistent with federal and state law. The bill amends existing law on beach nourishment to give priority consideration to Virginia beaches and to projects that use dredged material for environmentally beneficial purposes. It also expands the statutory definition of “beneficial use of dredged material” to include restoring underwater grasses and islands, stabilizing eroding shorelines, creating or enhancing wetlands, and creating or enhancing fish and shellfish habitat.
The bill adds a new section directing that, beginning December 1, 2027, the Commonwealth’s policy is to promote beneficial use of dredged material whenever feasible. It further requires the Marine Resources Commission to require beneficial use for all dredged-material permits unless the Commission determines such approaches are not suitable under criteria it develops. The Commission must also convene a work group to help develop implementing regulations or guidance. The Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources is assigned responsibility for determining whether dredged material is suitable for beach nourishment or other beneficial-use projects.
HB52 changes Virginia law by creating a stronger statutory preference for reusing dredged material rather than disposing of it in ways that do not provide environmental or shoreline benefits. It affects provisions in Title 10.1 and Title 28.2 governing beach nourishment, coastal resources, and marine regulation, and it gives the Marine Resources Commission a new permitting and rulemaking role. The bill is likely to affect dredging projects in the Chesapeake Bay, its tidal tributaries, and related coastal projects, including local governments, port and navigation projects, environmental restoration efforts, and shoreline property owners.
The available record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as reflected by its enactment into law as Chapter 908. The measure appears to align with coastal resilience, habitat restoration, and sediment-management goals, which are typically viewed positively by environmental and resource-management stakeholders. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so the specific level of support or opposition cannot be measured from the supplied materials.
The main points of potential contention are likely to involve the mandate that the Marine Resources Commission require beneficial use for all dredged-material permits unless deemed unsuitable, and the need to balance environmental reuse with project cost, engineering feasibility, navigation needs, and compliance with federal and state law. Stakeholders that rely on dredging for navigation or infrastructure maintenance may be concerned about added permitting constraints or implementation burdens, while environmental and coastal restoration advocates are likely to support the broader reuse requirement and habitat-focused applications. The bill also leaves key suitability criteria to be developed later, which may create uncertainty during implementation.