Provides that the legislature would be the body that negotiates on behalf of the state for all activities occurring in, on and over state submerged land extending beyond twenty-five (25) acres.
The legislation will establish new protocols for managing coastal resources and will require that any lease or license to use tidal lands or large-scale filling projects undergo approval from the General Assembly. The Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) will continue to review applications but will now act in an advisory role to the legislature, potentially increasing the time and complexity of the approval process for projects that might impact the coastal environment. This adjustment aims to enhance public trust and oversight in state-managed resources.
Senate Bill S2811 focuses on the governance and management of Rhode Island's coastal resources, particularly addressing large-scale activities occurring on state submerged lands extending beyond twenty-five acres. The bill proposes that the Rhode Island legislature will serve as the negotiating body for all such activities. This shift emphasizes the need for legislative oversight in matters deemed significant regarding the preservation and management of coastal resources, promoting a more coordinated approach to coastal management in the state.
Discussion surrounding S2811 has showcased a mix of support and concern. Proponents argue that the bill enhances accountability and ensures that significant environmental impacts are subjected to direct legislative scrutiny. Opponents, however, express worries about the potential for bureaucratic delays and the influence of political considerations on environmental management decisions, potentially undermining swift actions required for urgent environmental or safety concerns.
The notable points of contention lie in the balance between necessary environmental protections and the efficiency of managing economic interests in coastal activities. Critics highlight potential tensions between legislative oversight and effective management, fearing that increased political involvement could hinder necessary responses to environmental issues, while supporters see it as a needed step to safeguard public interests and uphold the public trust in naturally significant areas.