Legislation that if made into law would require buyers of oceanfront homes to be informed of the public’s “rights and privileges of the shore” is scheduled to go before the Rhode Island General Assembly this week.

The bills (2024-H 7376 and 2024-S 2185) both received a recommendation of passage last week in their respective Judiciary committee in the House of Representatives and Senate.

The House bill’s local sponsor is state Rep. Tina Spears (D-Dist. 36, Charlestown, South Kingstown, New Shoreham, Westerly), while the Senate version is sponsored locally by state Sen. Victoria Gu (D-Dist. 38, Westerly, Charlestown, South Kingstown).

Both bills are part of a package of legislation the lawmakers backed in March to add public protections for Rhode Islanders’ access to the shoreline.

Gu and others testified on the bill on April 23 before the Senate committee.

“This bill builds on the historic shoreline access law that the General Assembly passed last year,” Gu said.

That law moved the area of public access to within 10 feet inland of the seaweed line. Specifically, the law sets the line at 10 feet landward from the recognizable high tide line, also known as the “wrack line,” typically a line of seaweed, scum and other deposits left where the tide reached its highest point. It specifies that, in places where there are multiple wrack lines, the one closest to the water will be the one from which the 10 feet is measured.

Gu called the proposed disclosure bill an important consumer protection and education measure.

“A lot of people in Rhode Island are aware of the new shoreline access law, but people coming in from other states to buy property don’t necessarily know.”

Conrad Ferla, a supporter of the bill, administers a group devoted to saving coastal access.

“We discovered early on that real estate agents were advertising private beaches for places that weren’t often private,” he said. A recent listing in Green Hill by a Connecticut agent that advertised a private beach in reality referred to state land under the Department of Environmental Management, he said.

“We find this happening over and over again,” Ferla said. The issue also affects shoreline rental homes, he said.

Philip B. Tedesco, chief executive officer of the R.I. Association of Realtors, outlined several concerns about the bill. Among them were its definition of both “oceanfront” and “shoreline.”

“RIAR is concerned that there may be properties where it is difficult to determine if the definition

applies,” he said. “For instance, properties along ponds, rivers, etc. may be considered tidal-influenced, but the owners may not consider them oceanfront or shoreline. Failure to disclose this to a prospective buyer could be an oversight.”

It also has concerns about CRMC jurisdictional issues raised in the bill.

Another bill in the package, (2024-H 7645, 2024-S 2641) which allows for a “qualified abandonment” of town highways or driftways and grants a public easement over the road so it may be converted to a public trail, as well as for “access to parks, nature preserves and other recreational facilities” was passed in the House May 14. That modified version was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 17.

“This bill is a great step forward,” said Michael Rubin, a retired Rhode Island assistant attorney general and longtime coastal advocate. “It embodies the concept of doing no harm. Too often when towns abandon roads it harms the public by reducing access. This bill will allow those roads to continue to serve recreation and access to our natural resources.”

A third bill would allow the state Coastal Resources Management Council to designate historical footpaths as rights of way. Currently a pathway must have been used by carriages or vehicles to qualify as a potential right of way. The bill (2024-S 2634, 2024-H 7750) would repeal that condition, clearing the way for the CRMC to protect historical footpaths used for shoreline access through official designation. That bill has been held for further study in both chambers.

In opposition is the R.I. Mortgage Bankers Association, represented by Lenette Forry-Menard.

“We oppose it because we believe it will increase the likelihood of easement claims that would adversely affect values of real property secured by loans of our members,” she said.