RICHMOND, Va. — There could soon be statewide guidance on how to tackle issues that shape marine policy and advise on habitat, wetlands and coastal resilience policies.

Del. Alex Askew, D-Norfolk, introduced House Bill 390 to form a committee of 10 science, environmental, industry and government experts who review existing habitat policies and recommend improvements. The bill unanimously passed the House of Delegates and would establish a Habitat Policy Oversight Committee within the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, if approved by the Senate.

Virginia’s sea levels are rising more rapidly than the global rate, in part due to melting glaciers and sinking land, according to the state’s first ever comprehensive climate report released last November by George Mason University. The combination accelerates regional flooding, which threatens infrastructure, ecosystems and coastal communities.

Initially members of the new committee would serve two and four year terms that are staggered, before the permanent appointment term of four years. Members will not receive compensation for their services, only reimbursement for committee expenses.

The bill absorbed a previous bill by Del. Rob Bloxom, R-Accomack, who said the Virginia Marine Resources Commission would have a panel of advisers to help inform their votes.

The way the current system operates, the representatives responsible for establishing procedures may lack awareness of the issues shaping marine policy, Bloxom said. With a board of advisers from across the industry, the VMRC could better use Virginia’s resources “to try to make these programs actually function.”

Kelly Hengler, a citizen who opposed the bill during an Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources committee meeting on Feb. 2, said historically, the VMRC has a specific focus on fishery management. Hengler also argued that the term habitat as stated in the bill is not defined in Virginia law.

Bloxom disagreed. The VMRC controls any ocean ground that is not owned by the “upland owner,” or owner of land that is adjacent to submerged land, he said.

The VMRC manages fishing regulations, oyster farming, surveying marshes and overall habitat management, among other things, Bloxom said.

Numerous marine conservation organizations attended the meeting in support of the bill including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, American Rivers, the Virginia Conservation Network, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense Fund and Wetlands Watch.

Jay Ford, Virginia policy manager at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, expressed urgency for the bill’s implementation.

“The state is facing tremendous flooding and sea level rise issues,” Ford testified. “The habitat committee could play a vital role in helping the commission work through some of the novel technologies for mitigating flood risks that are coming up as well [as] balancing natural resource considerations and mitigation when we’re putting these novel practices on the ground.”

The rates of sea level rising in the lower Chesapeake Bay and Tidewater region of Virginia are among the highest on the Atlantic Coast, according to the GMU 2025 climate report.

Brent McKenzie, director of legislative affairs for Virginia Beach, said the city is a perfect example of how the committee would be beneficial, particularly regarding the challenges and issues they have faced getting permits for flooding projects.

Sea level rise will accelerate across Virginia coasts, and impact ecosystems, shorelines, habitat conversion, groundwater salinization and erosion, according to future projections by GMU.

The bill will use an existing committee in a formal way to tackle “changing environmental conditions with new and innovative solutions,” testified Emily Steinholzer, a representative of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Some of these innovative solutions have already been adopted in other states, according to Steinholzer. The Habitat Policy Oversight Committee will keep Virginia ahead of the game “as we adapt to climate change.”

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network is an organization that works to counter impacts of global warming in Maryland, Virginia and Washington. It previously said in a 2020 article that, “there has never been uniform, statewide guidance for how to respond to sea level rise.”

The VRMC would retain ultimate regulatory authority, but give due weight to the committee’s recommendations in decision making processes. The bill was referred to the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources committee, which meets on Tuesdays.

By Paige Frey/Capital News Service

Capital News Service is a program of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Richard T. Robertson School of Communication. Students in the program provide state government coverage for a variety of media outlets in Virginia.

This article was reprinted with permission from Virginia Mercury. 

After years of clearing the General Assembly only to meet a veto, legislation to create a legal, adult-use cannabis market in Virginia passed both chambers Tuesday — this time with a governor ready to sign it and retail sales poised to begin as early as November.

The votes mark the clearest signal yet that Virginia is poised to move from legal possession without legal sales to a fully regulated marketplace, a transition that has eluded the commonwealth since 2021, when lawmakers first legalized simple possession.

Tuesday morning, the House passed House Bill 642, sponsored by Del. Paul Krizek, D-Fairfax, by a 65-32 vote. Hours later, the Senate approved Senate Bill 542, introduced by Sen. Lashrecse Aird, D-Petersburg, by a narrow 21-19 margin after an initial failed vote.

Similar proposals have cleared the General Assembly in recent years — often with bipartisan backing — but were repeatedly vetoed by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin. This year, the political calculus has shifted. Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger has vowed to sign legislation establishing a regulated retail market.

Under Krizek’s bill, the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would administer the retail system, with no retail sales allowed prior to Nov. 1, 2026.

“It’s about fixing a status quo that is not working,” he said, noting that while adult possession of cannabis is legal, retail sales remain unregulated.

Right now, he said, the absence of a legal marketplace means “no testing, no standards and no oversight whatsoever.”

The bill, he added, would replace what he described as a $5 billion illegal market with a regulated system designed to protect public health. He pointed to requirements for testing, labeling and packaging, as well as enforcement mechanisms and penalties intended to keep products away from minors.

Krizek said the legislation takes a phased approach to give the Cannabis Control Authority time to implement the framework responsibly. It also preserves local control, granting localities full zoning authority over where and how retail stores operate.

He added that the proposal creates opportunities for small businesses and communities disproportionately harmed by past enforcement and called it “a measured, responsible step forward.”

Legal to possess, illegal to sell

Virginia first decriminalized marijuana in 2020 before lawmakers legalized simple possession.

But they failed to finalize a retail framework before Republicans regained the governor’s mansion, leaving cannabis in legal limbo — legal to possess, illegal to sell.

Over the past year, a joint legislative commission has worked to craft a new roadmap, hearing testimony from regulators, industry experts and advocates about safety, access and equity concerns.

Over the past year, the joint legislative commission held a series of hearings and work sessions to refine the framework, beginning with presentations in August on potential rollout models, followed by October discussions weighing safety, access and equity concerns.

By November, members were reviewing a draft retail blueprint, and in December they unveiled revisions aimed at setting the stage for a 2026 launch.

The Senate version, sponsored by Aird, largely mirrors the House proposal but sets a later retail start date of Jan. 1, 2027.

The measure initially failed Tuesday afternoon after Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, recused himself because he is about to assume a role at the Cannabis Control Authority. Moments later, Ebbin asked for reconsideration, stating he has “no financial interest” in an adult-use cannabis marketplace. On the second vote, the bill passed 21-19.

The substitute measure adopted this week, Aird said, incorporates many elements lawmakers have seen before but also introduces new approaches — starting with governance.

“This new legislation takes on the approach where the Cannabis Control Authority will manage the license and regulatory portions while the marketplace is immediately being stood up,” Aird said.

Taxes, caps and rollout timeline

The measure establishes a state tax rate of 12.875% on retail cannabis sales, along with an additional 3% local option tax. Permit applications would begin in July 2026, and seed-to-sale tracking would start Sept. 1, 2026, ahead of a Jan. 1, 2027 retail launch.

“The transaction limit for retail purchases will remain at 2.5 ounces, which has always been throughout this process,” Aird said.

The legislation outlines standards for a lottery process for impact licensees and creates a tiered cultivation licensing structure based on canopy size, ranging from tiers one through five, with the largest capped at 35,000 square feet.

A maximum of 350 retail licenses would be issued statewide. Cultivation facilities would be capped at 450 through 2028. At-home cultivation would continue to be permitted, allowing up to four plants per household, provided each plant is tagged with the grower’s name and identification.

Local governments would no longer be able to ban cannabis retail through referenda.

The bill also sets THC limits for non-pharmaceutical products at 10 milligrams per serving and 100 milligrams per package. Aird said it includes robust criminal provisions aimed at cracking down on illicit sales and the illegal marketplace.

“There are a lot of details in this legislation,” she said.

If signed by Spanberger, the measures would mark the final step in a yearslong effort to bring structure and oversight to a market that has operated without a legal retail framework.

Aird emphasized Tuesday that many lawmakers contributed to shaping the legislation — a proposal she said reflects extensive collaboration across chambers.

“There are many in this chamber that have helped shape this legislation,” she said.

A proposal to allow Northern Virginia voters to weigh in on whether to build a casino in Fairfax County has advanced to the state’s House of Delegates.

And even though the latest plan doesn’t specify Tysons as the location for the project, some community members there are still skeptical.

“It’s already congested enough,” Kristin Harrig said. “There’s enough to do here. We don’t need to gamble here. You can go across the river to the National Harbor.”

Previous attempts to advance the casino project focused on the Tysons area. The new legislation, though, would allow the casino to be built anywhere in Fairfax County.

Virginia’s state Senate approved the plan Friday, 23-14, though several lawmakers representing Northern Virginia opposed it.

Some elected officials in the suburb have spoken out against the project, and with a 5-4 vote, the Board of Supervisors opted to keep it out of its legislative priorities.

“Maybe somewhere out in Loudoun County or something like that, but not in Fairfax County,” resident Jamaal French told WTOP. “But in Northern Virginia, definitely.”

Kevin Ejtemai, who owns a business in the Tysons Corner Center mall, said he has “three small children, and we don’t want this area to become inundated with gamblers and drunk people walking around the casino, around town.”

But Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell said many similar concerns are overblown. There isn’t any organized opposition to the project outside of McLean, he said, adding that he lives “closer to the MGM Casino than most of these people in McLean complaining, and it hasn’t changed my quality of life.”

“A lot of people, I think, are sort of saying the sky is going to fall, but I don’t think it’s consistent with reality,” Surovell said.

Dipen Patel said he’d support a casino project in Tysons, and “I don’t see a reason why Fairfax should not have a casino.”

“As much money is flowing from Virginia to Maryland, we’re better off doing one here,” Patel said, “because we see a lot of population coming to MGM for gambling purposes.”

Surovell said that last year, the House of Delegates didn’t really speak about the proposal: “But I’m confident that this year, the House is interested in figuring out a way to proceed on this, and I think we will get something on the governor’s desk.”

But for French, “as a resident of Fairfax County, it’s already hard enough to get around out here. I’m not for it, not right here, but somewhere close that I can still get to it.”

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

© 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.