Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill creates a new federal investment tax credit (new Internal Revenue Code section 48F) that allows a credit equal to 30% of the qualified investment in qualifying working waterfront disaster mitigation projects. The credit is capped at $300,000 per taxpayer (with inflation adjustment after 2026), and a taxpayer cannot receive the credit more than once in any 10-year period (with limited exceptions for progress expenditures). "Qualifying working waterfront" is defined as U.S. real property used in an active trade or business that provides access to navigable waters and meets a gross receipts test (average annual receipts over prior three years not exceeding $47 million, indexed after 2026).
Form of support: Liberals favor credit as resilience tool but want stronger equity and environmental safeguards; conservatives object to federal subsidies and prefer state/local or market solutions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-integrated substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly defines the credit, eligible investments, and integration points with existing tax provisions, while delegating implementation details to Treasury and FEMA.
This bill creates a new federal investment tax credit (new Internal Revenue Code section 48F) that allows a credit equal to 30% of the qualified investment in qualifying working waterfront disaster mitigation projects.
The credit is capped at $300,000 per taxpayer (with inflation adjustment after 2026), and a taxpayer cannot receive the credit more than once in any 10-year period (with limited exceptions for progress expenditures). "Qualifying working waterfront" is defined as U.S. real property used in an active trade or business that provides access to navigable waters and meets a gross receipts test (average annual receipts over prior three years not exceeding $47 million, indexed after 2026).
Eligible projects must meet specified building-code standards and be designed to mitigate damage from natural hazards using prescribed methods (e.g., structural elevation, flood risk reduction, shoreline stabilization, retrofitting, floodproofing, and warning systems).
Content-wise the bill is relatively modest and non-ideological, with design choices (per-taxpayer cap, receipts threshold, design standards) that make it more politically palatable than a large entitlement or a broad new tax break. However, it still creates a new tax expenditure without offsets and requires administrative rulemaking; such fiscal impacts and technical complexity reduce standalone chances. The bill is more likely to succeed if folded into a broader, bipartisan disaster-resilience, infrastructure, or tax package or paired with offsets or broader policy priorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-integrated substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly defines the credit, eligible investments, and integration points with existing tax provisions, while delegating implementation details to Treasury and FEMA.
Form of support: Liberals favor credit as resilience tool but want stronger equity and environmental safeguards; conservatives object to federal subsidies and prefer state/local or market solutions.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Form of support: Liberals favor credit as resilience tool but want stronger equity and environmental safeguards; conservatives object to federal subsidies and prefer state/local or market solutions.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill positively as a targeted federal policy to help protect small and mid-sized waterfront businesses and communities from climate-driven disasters.
They would see the credit as helping preserve jobs in fisheries, aquaculture, boatbuilding, and other water-dependent trades while advancing community resilience.
They would also note limits: the dollar cap and tax-credit form mean some vulnerable actors may still lack sufficient support.
A pragmatic moderate would likely see this bill as a sensible, targeted federal incentive to reduce disaster risk for working waterfront businesses while balancing fiscal restraint through a per-taxpayer cap and eligibility limits.
They would appreciate the Treasury-FEMA consultation requirement and the three-year gross receipts test that focuses benefits on smaller businesses.
They would seek clearer cost estimates, stronger definitions to reduce ambiguity, and mechanisms to ensure cost-effectiveness and coordination with existing hazard-mitigation programs.
A mainstream conservative would be skeptical of creating a new federal tax credit that directs subsidies to specific industries and property owners, viewing it as federal picking of winners and increased tax expenditure.
They would be concerned about added complexity, possible federal overreach through building-code conditions and Treasury/FEMA involvement, and the risk of subsidizing private property upgrades that ought to be private or state/local responsibilities.
They might favor limiting federal exposure further or converting the program to a state-administered matching grant program with clearer fiscal controls.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content-wise the bill is relatively modest and non-ideological, with design choices (per-taxpayer cap, receipts threshold, design standards) that make it more politically palatable than a large entitlement or a broad new tax break. However, it still creates a new tax expenditure without offsets and requires administrative rulemaking; such fiscal impacts and technical complexity reduce standalone chances. The bill is more likely to succeed if folded into a broader, bipartisan disaster-resilience, infrastructure, or tax package or paired with offsets or broader policy priorities.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Form of support: Liberals favor credit as resilience tool but want stronger equity and environmental safeguards; conservatives object to fe…
Content-wise the bill is relatively modest and non-ideological, with design choices (per-taxpayer cap, receipts threshold, design standards…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-integrated substantive amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that clearly defines the credit, eligible investments, and integration points with existing ta…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.