Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
This bill creates a new federal investment tax credit (IRC section 48F) equal to 30% of qualified investments in "working waterfront disaster mitigation projects." Qualified investments are the depreciable basis of tangible property placed in service as part of a qualifying project (with certain progress-expenditure rules and coordination with rehabilitation credits). Projects must benefit "working waterfront" properties (businesses providing access to navigable waters for commercial/recreational fishing, boatbuilding, aquaculture, dredging, or other water-dependent activities) that meet a gross receipts test (average annual receipts ≤ $47 million, indexed).
Mechanism: Liberals favor adaptation funding but worry that a tax credit may not reach the poorest operators; conservatives object to a new tax expenditure—this is a central disagreement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-law change that is mechanically well-specified in credit formula, eligibility definitions, and statutory integration, but it omits fiscal acknowledgment and leaves important administrative procedures and accountability mechanisms to future regulations.
This bill creates a new federal investment tax credit (IRC section 48F) equal to 30% of qualified investments in "working waterfront disaster mitigation projects." Qualified investments are the depreciable basis of tangible property placed in service as part of a qualifying project (with certain progress-expenditure rules and coordination with rehabilitation credits).
Projects must benefit "working waterfront" properties (businesses providing access to navigable waters for commercial/recreational fishing, boatbuilding, aquaculture, dredging, or other water-dependent activities) that meet a gross receipts test (average annual receipts ≤ $47 million, indexed).
The credit is capped at $300,000 per taxpayer (indexed after 2026), cannot be claimed by a taxpayer more than once within any 10-year period, and must meet specified building-code and hazard-mitigation design criteria; Treasury will issue regulations in consultation with FEMA.
Content‑wise the bill is a narrowly targeted, administratively coherent tax credit for resilience projects that could attract support from coastal‑district legislators and those prioritizing hazard mitigation. However, it creates a new tax expenditure without explicit offsets and benefits a defined constituency, which routinely slows or prevents enactment unless folded into a larger package (e.g., tax extenders, infrastructure, or appropriations negotiations). The absence of a sunset, while mitigated by per‑taxpayer limits and other guardrails, still leaves a revenue impact that can be a barrier.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-law change that is mechanically well-specified in credit formula, eligibility definitions, and statutory integration, but it omits fiscal acknowledgment and leaves important administrative procedures and accountability mechanisms to future regulations.
Mechanism: Liberals favor adaptation funding but worry that a tax credit may not reach the poorest operators; conservatives object to a new tax expenditure—this is a central disagreement.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Mechanism: Liberals favor adaptation funding but worry that a tax credit may not reach the poorest operators; conservatives object to a new tax expenditure—this is a central disagreement.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill as a constructive, targeted step toward climate adaptation and community resilience for coastal and water-dependent workers.
They would welcome federal support that reduces the cost barrier for small businesses and fishing communities to invest in flood and erosion mitigation.
However, they would be cautious that using a tax credit (rather than direct grants) may not reach the lowest-income or tax-exempt operators and that some engineering responses (e.g., hard armoring) could harm ecosystems.
A pragmatic moderate would generally view the bill as a targeted, market-friendly tool to promote disaster resilience for a clearly defined set of industries.
They would appreciate the use of existing tax-code mechanisms and the relatively modest per-taxpayer cap, but seek clarity on fiscal cost, program integrity, and administrative implementation.
They would emphasize the need for good regulations, oversight to prevent abuse, and evaluation metrics to ensure effectiveness and efficient use of taxpayer resources.
A mainstream conservative would be skeptical of creating another targeted federal tax credit and would view this policy as an expansion of federal tax expenditures.
While valuing resilience for economically important coastal industries, they would worry about federal interference via model building-code requirements and prefer local control.
Concerns would focus on fiscal cost, potential for abuse, and whether a tax-credit approach is the most efficient or fair way to help waterfront businesses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content‑wise the bill is a narrowly targeted, administratively coherent tax credit for resilience projects that could attract support from coastal‑district legislators and those prioritizing hazard mitigation. However, it creates a new tax expenditure without explicit offsets and benefits a defined constituency, which routinely slows or prevents enactment unless folded into a larger package (e.g., tax extenders, infrastructure, or appropriations negotiations). The absence of a sunset, while mitigated by per‑taxpayer limits and other guardrails, still leaves a revenue impact that can be a barrier.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Mechanism: Liberals favor adaptation funding but worry that a tax credit may not reach the poorest operators; conservatives object to a new…
Content‑wise the bill is a narrowly targeted, administratively coherent tax credit for resilience projects that could attract support from…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-law change that is mechanically well-specified in credit formula, eligibility definitions, and statutory integration, but it omits fiscal acknowl…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.