[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell' Part 1: Overview of an Interdisciplinary Approach BY PETER H. F. GRABER Ojfice of the A ttorneyv General. State of California San Francisco, California IlNrTROD)UCTION b. Tidelands, or those lands lying between the lines of mean high and mean low water, referred to in T nHE COASTAL ZONE-that fragile strip of the earth England and some states as the foreshore. where the sea and the land meet-has fascinated c. Submerged lands, or those lands lying seaward mankind for centuries. During 1980, the Year of (below) the line of mean low water. regardless of the Coast, many Americans from diverse disciplines of whether they are in state or federal ownership. are examining the coastline of the United States as 2. Putting the Rules oJ'Law Into Perspective. Ancieni never before. This examinination into the nature, civilizations that grew and prospered-and sometimes problems and potential of the coastal zone is more declined-along the shores of tidal waters provide meaningful when based upon an understanding of the prologue for today's law of the coast in the United fundamental legal principles applicable to the lands States. How many of our present legal concepts are and waters in that zone. derived from the customs or practices of the early I. A Working Definition of the Coastal Zone. Before Egyptians or Greeks? No one knows for sure. summarizing some of these principles, a working But we do know that the roots of our contemporary definition of the term "coastal zone" is necessary. rules of law concerning the coastal zone may be traced The term is defined differently in the federal Coastal back at least to the time of the Roman Empire. The Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA)' than in the Institutes of Justinian, the Roman emperor (483-565 several state coastal management statutes. The CZMA A.D.), are the foundation of the public trust doctrine, defines the coastal zone, in part, as: which assures Americans' rights to fish and swim in and otherwise enjoy U.S. coastal waters. ". . . the coastal waters (including the lands Although legal scholars traditionally have cited ear- therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands lier laws and customs as the bases for contemporary (including the waters therein and thereunder), rules of law, the important role that science and strongly influenced by each other and in proximity technology play in the application of these current to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and rules-particularly those governing the determination [including] transitional and intertidal areas, salt of tidal boundaries-is sometimes overlooked or un- marshes, wetlands, and beaches. .. . deremphasized. The articles in this series use "coastal zone" to HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE LAW refer to that area consisting of three categories of land: A. Two Systems of Jurisprudence a. Uplands, or littoral lands lying landward of Contemporary United States law relating to the (above) the line of mean high water, including (for coastal zone stems from principles developed in two this purpose) swamp and overflowed lands and the majorsystemsofjurisprudence: (I) the civil law, which dry-sand portion of beaches. originated in ancient Rome and is followed in Con- tinental Europe, and (2) the common law, which evolved This, the first ifa erte of articles presennrtg cipsulescrstn tihe ontemporary in England and has been generally adopted by the law of the coasi for noi-attornc, hs artisle prccnts an ovcr,,ew. ncluding a hnre 13 original states and most later-admitted states. review of the hitsorlcal background ol the law and summaries .t1 the rules of law pertaining to the title to and houndanes of lands within Ihe coa.tal lone. the puhlc INuI dictrine B. The Civil Law and related topics Since it is an overflew, ,some of the hbroad statements In iI are inapplicable in -nme i!urtsdic tIns. The stews cprecssd in the articles do nttl net.c-sarli; reflectblo the fuee of the Altorney Gencral. State .,f L.lworna. or t,l an other The Mediterranean Sea, an important avenue of agency of the tate of California. commerce and navigation during the Roman Empire, 14 SHORE AND BEACH influenced the development of the civil law of the who was to become lord chief justice, espoused coast. Early Roman law proclaimed that the sea and Digges' theory in the treatise De Jure Manris. written the seashore were res communes. or "common to circa 1666-67' all," and not subject to private ownership.) Louisiana. carved out of the vast area acquired from D. Application of the English Common Law in the France by the Louisiana Purchase. still follows some civil-law concepts." In Texas. the civil law governs The early American colonists generally had been boundaries of littoral lands conveyed by the Spanish exposed to the English common law through their and Mexican governments before the founding of the heritage. but "'t] he remoteness of England coupled Republic of Texas.- with the inadequacy of early English administrative machinery for colonial affairs. left these colonists very C. IThe English Common Lmai largely free from external impositions of the common Conventional wisdom is that under the English law for a substantial period of time ...."2 common law, which evolved in that seafaring island However. as the colonies grew. application of the kingdom over many centuries, the crown owns the English common law became more widespread. This tidc and submerged lands.' But this statement is development "... can be regarded as the joint simplistic. In fact, there is evidence that early English product of (1) the English Government's desire to kings granted favored lords title to and exclusive unify the colonies for purposes of the empire's com- private rights of fishery in many tidal areas.' mercial gain: and (2) the colonists' desire to gain While the Magna Carta (1215) expressly addresses freedom from tyranny and exploitation by asserting navigational and fishing rights only briefly, some legal the inherited 'rights of Englishmen.' "'3 commentators believe that it was a turning point in English coastal law.' Subsequently. the interest of E. Effect of the American Revolution and the Indepen- the public in tidal waters was given greater legal dence of the Former Colonies protection in England. With the American Revolution, the former colonies, Thomas Digges. a lawyer. engineer and surveyor. by virtue of their new sovereignty, succeeded to the is credited with developing the theory that the crown rights of the English crown and Parliament in colonial owns the lands underlying tidal waters. Circa 1568-69, tidelands. Absolute title to all tidelands was vested during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. he wrote a in the original states, in trust, except for those lands treatise entitled Proofs of the Queen's Interest in Lands that had been previously and validly granted into lefi bh the Sea and the Salt Shores thereof. As a later private ownership. 4 English legal scholar stated: "By this treatise was In 1789 the original states surrendered to the Federal first invented and set up the claim of the Crown to Government some of their rights in the tidelands by the foreshore. reclaimed land. salt marsh, and derelict adopting the United States Constitution. which pro- land in right of the prerogative."' vides the bases of the Federal Government's com- Although the English courts did not immediately merce clause powers and its admiralty jurisdiction.' embrace Digges' theory. the doctrine of the crown's The term "federal navigational servitude" refers prina facie title in tidelands was generally accepted to the Federal Government's paramount authority to under English common law within the following cen- control and regulate the navigable waters of the United tury. " Sir Matthew Hale (Fig. I), an influential jurist States under the commerce clause. Due to this nation's dual legal system, jurisdiction is divided between the federal courts and the various states' courts. Each state is free to adopt its own rules of real property. Generally, questions of title to and the legal boundaries of lands within the coastal zone are determined under the appropriate state con- stitution, statutes and case law. F. Impact of the Subsequently Admitted States' Rights UInder the Equal-Footing Doctrine ____________, ~ ~ ~ In 1845 the United States Supreme Court declared that as new states are subsequently admitted to the Union. they are deemed to have the same sovereignty and property rights as the original 13 states.'" This i - F~ concept is known as the equal-footing doctrine. - C ^ ~ Under this doctrine, as the United States acquired additional territory, title to all lands beneath tidal and other navigable waters vested in the nation, subject IFS~ -i:? 4 to valid grants by prior governments. in trust for future v~-dL.~ M states. Upon creation of a new sovereign state from such acquired areas. or from the lands formerly within ii J,- an older state, the new coastal state became vested Fig. 1. The Rt. Han. Sir Matthew Haole (From Fourteen with title to all lands underlying tidal waters. English Judges, by The Earl of Birkenhead). The after-admitted states' sovereign title to tide- OCTOBER 1980 15 lands, except for those lands previously granted, is Another major controversy has been over what line absolute, although subject to the public trust easement constitutes the proper boundary between the sub- and the Federal Government's paramount navigational merged lands subject to the Federal (iovernment's servitude and admiralty jurisdiction. exclusive jurisdiction and control and the adjoining state-owned lands. The legal effect of physical changes in the location of the tidal boundaries and other tide-defined contour TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE lines-resulting from accretion, erosion, reliction or avulsion-has been another frequently disputed sub- A. Uplands ject. In general, most littoral lands along the American coasts are privately owned. But a surprisingly large B. Basic Elements in Tidal Boundary Determination portion of these uplands is owned by various govern- mental entities, ranging from the Federal Government Determination of both private/state boundaries and to municipalities. state/federal boundaries, delimiting classifications of lands within the coastal zone, involves use of data B. Tidelands derived from tidal observations. In the United States, Generally, the coastal states or their governmental this information is compiled and published by the grantees own the tidelands, subject to the public trust National Ocean Survey (NOS).' easement to be discussed below, except for lands Essentially, tidal boundary determination is a func- validly granted into private ownership by prior foreign tion of the relationship between ( ) a vertical elevation or colonial governments or conveyed by the states and (2) a horizontal element. As stated by Aaron L. themselves. Shalowitz, the legendary lawyer, engineer and author for NOS's predecessor agency: C. Submerged Lands The term "submerged lands" has been used generi- "Boundaries determined by the course of the cally in this article to describe lands lying seaward tides involve two engineering aspects: a vertical of the line of mean low water. But a more precise one, predicated on the height reached by the tide during its vertical rise and fall. and constituting classification of the categories of these lands is neces- during its vertical rise and all, and constituting a tidal plane or datum. such as mean high water, sary for title analysis. mean low water. etc., and a horizontal one, related Under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953," the to the line where the tidal plane intersects the shore coastal states, in general, own the submerged lands to form the tidal boundary desired, for example, within a 3-geographical-mile-wide belt beyond the mean high-water mark. mean low-water mark. tidelands. But Texas and Florida (as to its Gulf of The first is derived from tidal observations alone. Mexico coast only) have title to submerged lands to and, once derived (on the basis of long-term ob- a line 3 leagues, or 9 geographical miles. seaward servations).isforallpracticalpurposesa permanent of the baseline set forth in the act. Some states have one. The second is dependent on the first, but granted submerged lands tho cit.ttes and other govern- is also affected by the natural processes of erosion granted submerged lands to cities and other govern- mental entities. and accretion, and the artificial changes made by man. A water boundary determined by tidal In 1953 Congress also passed the Outer Continental definition is thus not a fixed, visible mark on the Shelf (OCS) Lands Act,"' which constituted Congress' ground, such as a roadway or fence, but represents first assertion of "jurisdiction over the vast submarine a condition at the water's edge during a particular area that fringes our coasts and over which the high instant of the tidal cycle."2' seas flow."' This law applies to those submerged lands lying The English common law recognized the physical seaward of the lands owned by the states. Under the fact of accretion, erosion and reliction. As one treatise Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the United States puts it: "The sea shore or foreshore [i.e., tidelands] has jurisdiction over these submerged lands, and the is therefore a movable freehold varying as the water secretary of the interior may lease the lands for gradually and imperceptibly recedes or encroaches exploration and drilling of mineral resources.2" . . . . C. Applicable Scientific Principles and Technical Data Clearly, rules of law about what constitutes property boundaries defined in terms of the tide should be DETERMINATION OF T~IDAL BOUNDARIES considered within the context of relevant con- temporary scientific principles and available technical A. Principal Boundary Problems data. Historically, many critical legal disputes involving Frequently, littoral property owners and other lay- the determination of boundaries between different men do not appreciate the interplay between the rules categories of land within the coastal zone have focused of law and these scientific/technical elements. Space on (1) the threshold issue of what constitutes the legal does not permit a detailed analysis here. and it is boundary between privately owned uplands and state- assumed that readers are familiar with phases of the owned tidelands and (2) the practical question of how tide, types of tide, tidal datums, tidal epochs and that line is to be located on the ground. various physical processes affecting the coastal zone. 16 SHORE AND BEACH D. The Basic Legal Rules of Demarcation of Tidal Boundaries A legal boundary defined in terms of the tide-- whether a high-water or a low-water boundary--is the intersection of the relevant local tidal datum with the sloping shore delimiting the boundary.24 No uniform American rule of law concerning de- marcation of tidal boundaries is universally applicable in all federal and state courts. This occurs partly because of this country's dual federal-state system, and partly because of the historical permutations and - combinations that contributed to development of each state's local real property law. 1. The Civil-Law Rule. Under the Roman law's principle of communal ownership of the seashore, the - boundary between privately and publicly owned - . coastal lands is the highest wash of the winter waves.2' 2. The English Common-Law Rule. About 1666-67, a milestone in English common-law tidal boundary determination occurred when Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), who had espoused the theory of the crown's primafacie ownership of the tidelands, wrote his influential De Jure Maris.2 The respected Lord Hale's legal treatise classified the shoreline on the basis of what he perceived to be three types of tide: "(1st.) The high spring tides. which are the fluxes of the sea at those tides that happen at the two equinoxials; . . . "(2d) The spring tides, which happen twice every month at full and change of the moon: "(3d) Ordinary tides, or nepe Isic] tides, which happen between the full and change of the moon Apparently, Lord Hale introduced the concept that what he termed "nepe" or "neap" tides should be Fia. 2. Sir Isaac Newton (From Essays on the Life and Work considered the "ordinary tides" for property boundary of Newton, by Augustus De Morgan). purposes. In his treatise, he concluded that lands subject to inundation by tides of the first two of his three classes can be privately owned, but that the commnon-lawu urist of the 17th centur, realized that foreshore owned by the crown extends landward as Lord Hale's equating "neap tides" with "ordinary far as it is covered by "the ordinary flux of the sea." tides' was unscientific. Indeed. for the next century As Shalowitz correctly points out: and a half. the disciplines of law and science apparently did not comnlprchcnd one anotfher's views about the Lord Hale's designation of 'neap tides' nature of the tide. shows that it is susceptible of two interpretations: [)uring the IXth and 19th centuries. the common-law (I) all the tides that occur between the full and ternl "ordinary high-waler mark" cncrall! was rec- change of the moon. and (2) only those tides that ounio/.e in I-nlland as dcscrihing the boundary be- occur twice a month at the time of the first and tmecn the soverCigil's tidelarnds and the adjoining third quarters when the moon is in quadrature."2' prixacilv owned littoral lands. This legal term is imnprlecise and susceptible to several interpretations. Ironically, about the same time Lord Hale was The case of1 Irit,,rmnv- G;crlrdx. ('hanber.%., ' decid- writing about his perception of the types of tide, ed ini 1854. is Ihe classic I:nllish cornnion-law tidal another Englishman, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) houindarv decicion. Il thallt t;iase, the lord chancellor (Fig. 2), was evolving the first workable scientific ruled that the oidinaii high-xealar mark was to be tidal theory, based upon his universal theory of grav- determined b\ 'the a'\cl ;lce ol the meadiunnl tides in itation. In 1666, Sir Isaac "began to think of gravity eachll qlt;ler l 1 ; Ithir cvhlltiuon during the year extending to the orb of the moon." When the third I1xn1h inecl .ixcs tlie limit. in the absence of all and final book in Sir Isaac's Principia was published usavl.. it) the rihlts 1i Itcl ( 'ro, n (,m the sea-shore." in 1687, planetary motions were explained under his .7..Snrlnmarl I/ I 'gaitl illgndlar fl Determinatrin Rules universal theory of gravitation.2" (lith' I 'nited.s'taul. I IIt 35lt tihe tIitcd States Supreme Unfortunately, Lord Hale died before the publica- Still s landlark deIsi'n ( tidal boundarv deter- tion of Principia and it appears that no other English ilttiatin v; a ' ret l(i1d i11, H,'run. l/d. v. v. ( ifr f Los OCTOBER 1980 17 Angeles. 1 The court in effect held that. in interpreting TILE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE a federal upland patent bordering on tidelands, the legal term "ordinary high-water mark" should be A. Origin and l)evelopment equated with the technical phrase "line of mean high Although generally referred to as the commllOn-law water," and that the boundary is the intersection of water,'' and that the boundary is the intersection of' public trust doctrine, the concept that the public has the tidal datum of mean high water, as determined the right to use navigable waters irrespective of who by the Federal Government, with the land. owns the underlying lands dates back to ancient Rome. The court, after considering Lord Hale's 1666-67 The early Roman civil law provided that the sea legal treatise on the types of shorelands and the 1854 and the shoreline were held in common. One transla- English Chambers decision, rejected the use of "neap tion of the Institutes of Justinian reads in part: high tides" for determining the ordinary high-water mark. Instead, taking judicial notice of the Coast and 'No one . .. is forbidden access to the seashore, Geodetic Survey's definition of mean high water, the provided he abstains from injury to limprove- court held that the upland/tideland boundary is to ments .. [A . . . harhours are public so be determined by using the mean of all the high waters that all persons have a right to fish therein over an 18.6-year tidal cycle. Again, the public use of the seashore. as of the In essence, the Borax decision applies modern sea itself, ispartofthelaw ofnations: consequently. scientific and technical data to the English Chambers everyone is free ... to dry his nets and haul them rule, thus adapting it to improved technology and up from the sea .... setting forth a workable method of precisely defining the tidal boundary in question. In England, the public's rights in tidelands increased By and large, most American coastal states have through the centuries following the Magna Carta adhered to the basic English common-law rule that (1215). Statutes and decisions in cases recognized these the ordinary high-water mark-or its updated, more expanding public rights to navigate and fish in tidal scientific counterpart, the line of mean high water- waters and to use the lands underlying such waters constitutes the legal boundary between privately for related purposes. owned uplands and state-owned tidelands. As a gen- With the increasing tempo of English commerce eralization, subject to many qualifications, 16 coastal and the industrial revolution, the development of the states deem the mean high-water line to be the pri- public trust doctrine accelerated. The doctrine gen- vate/state tidal boundary.32 erally evolved "in the framework of a series of public On the other hand, six Atlantic Coast states have easements imposed on a largely private fee ownership departed from the English common-law boundary and system rather than that of public ownership through utilize the mean low-water line as the private/public the state . . . tidal boundary."3 Jus publicum, as the jurists and legal scholars refer The civil-law rule of private/public tidal boundary to such public trust easements, thus is distinguishable determination has had an effect in Louisiana and, to from jus privatum, or the proprietary right in tidelands a lesser extent, in Texas. In Louisiana, the private/ held by the crown, its private grantees or their succes- state tidal boundary is the line of the highest winter sors.42 tide.34 In Texas, if the original source of upland title is a Spanish or Mexican grant predating Texas' B. American Expansion of the Doctrine independence, the line of mean higher high water is The common law is flexible. Americans, once the legal boundary.5 independent of England, could and did expand and Hawaii adheres to its aboriginal, customary concept clarify the public trust doctrine transplanted from the that the private/public boundary is marked by the English common law. The doctrine has become in- upper reaches of the wash of the waves. c" creasingly significant as a tool to assure the public 4. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location of the right to use tide and submerged lands in the of the Shoreline. In general, the federal courts and United States. most coastal states recognize the concept of ambula- Under the public trust doctrine as generally articu- tory tidal boundaries. Consequently, "gradual, imper- lated by American courts, the state, through its legisla- ceptible" physical changes in the location on the ture, is a trustee for the benefit of the general public, ground of the boundary-whether it be a high- or whether the underlying title to the tidelands is in the low-water line and whether naturally or artificially state or has been granted to a private party.43 caused-result in a shift of the legal boundary. ' The The landmark United States Supreme Court decision littoral owners and the states thus can both gain and describing and clarifying the public trust doctrine is lose land as the legal boundary fluctuates because Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, decided in 1892.44 of accretion, erosion or reliction. A minority rule is The court, after pointing out that a state's title to that the physical change must be due to natural tidelands differs from that which the state holds in phenomena rather than induced artificially by the lands intended for sale, said: works of man."' On the other hand, avulsions-sudden, perceptible It is a title held in trust for the people changes in the physical location of the boundary- of the State that they may enjoy the navigation generally do not result in an adjustment of the legal of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and boundary between private uplands and state-owned have liberty of fishing therein freed from the tidelands."' obstruction or interference of private parties."''4 18 SHORE AND BEACH Since that case, the trust has been traditionally defined LEASING AND REGULATION OF COASTAL in terms of commerce, navigation and fisheries. ZONE LANDS AND WATERS Under the American federal system, each state has evolved its own rules of law as to the scope and A. Leasing and Other Proprietary Uses extent of the public trust doctrine. Many states have expanded the doctrine to embrace recreational usese expandinoed rn the d octrine to embrace recreational ses gram for Outer C(ontinental Shelf areas parallels similar and in California the trust concept has been judicially leasing of state-owned tide and submerged lands. construed as encompassing the preservation of tide- In general. state leases of these lands must be lands in their natural state for ecological and environ- consistent with the public trust to which they are mental purposes."' subject. But exploration and drilling for oil and other mineral resources has been judicially sanctioned. C. Termination of the Public Trust Easement B. Regulatory' Functions Although the states have generally expanded the The Federal Government and coastal state govern- public rights and interests protected by the public trust doctrine. termination of the public trust easement is ments. as well as local governmental entites exercise vast regulatory control over the lands and waters within permissible in limited situations. the coastal zone. 1. Federal Gorernment. Even before the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. the United States was deeply involved in regulation of waters within the PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS zone. Federal regulation mushroomed with the passage of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,.' which In most jurisdictions, private littoral owners have empowered the Army Corps of Engineers to control the right of access from their upland property to the dredging, filling and obstructions to navigation. adjoining navigable tidal waters. But, in general. the During the post-World War 11 era, various federal statutes--such as the National Environmental Policy private right of access is subordinate to the paramount statutes-such a the National Water Pollutionment ol public right of navigation and governmental regulation Act of 1969 and the Feder al Water Polluton Control of navigation.4 And some state laws enable the state Act Amendments of 1972--have granted man' othe to exercise its authority as trustee under the public federal agencies regulatory powers touching on the trust doctrine to deprive a private upland owner of ~access to a tidal waterwav44 2. State and Local Governments. Environmental The various states deal differently with private concern for the fragile coastal zone has also been reflected in numerous state, regional and local regula- littoral rights. and since such rights are an incident reflected in numerous state, region and local regula of property, each state's rules must be examined. For tory schemes. Commissions and agencies regulating example, in many states, littoral owners have the right the use and development of the zone function in to construct and maintain docks piers and wharves California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New to construct and maintain docks, piers and wharves, but in some jurisdictions general wharfing-out rights Jersey, Oregon and Washington. are not recognized. Regional approaches have been implemented in such tidal water areas as Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay. Municipalities and other local governmental entities also have played a significant part in the regulation PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS of coastal zone lands and waters, although sometimes in the negative sense of attempting to restrict the use Frequently, the competing private and public in- of beaches to residents only. terests in uses of the lands and waters within the coastal zone focus on whether members of the general public may legally cross privately owned lands to gain CONCLUSION access to adjacent sandy beaches. Obviously, the general doctrine of public ownership of tide and Coastal zone administrators, oceanographers, coast- submerged lands may be only theoretically meaningful al engineers. surveyors and other professionals cannot if people cannot gain access to such lands and the deal with the land/sea interface in a legal vacuum. waters covering them. They should be aware of the basic relevant rules of Congress, state legislatures and the judiciary have law. Only through such an interdisciplinary approach developed a number of methods of assuring public can the coastal zone's problems be resolved and its access to tidal waters and lands. Space does not permit potential realized. a catalog of the various devices of accommodating both private and public interests. but a few examples REFERENCES may be cited: (I) Texas' Open Beaches Act: (2) requirements for express dedication of beach access 1. 86 Stal. 1280 (codified at 16 U.S C. �1451 ei seq.). routes: (3) the doctrine of implied dedication of such 2. 86 Stat 1281. 1�3((a) (codified at 16 U.S.C. �1453(a)). access routes; and (4) use of the common-law concept 3. Jsii,,,s, Instilutes. 1. 2.2,. 2.3. 2.10 Ihereinafter cited as of custom. Justinian]. OCTOBER 1980 19 4. See, e.g., La. Civ. Code. art. 451. Florida, Marnland. Mississippi. New Jersey, New Yo"rk, North 5. Lulles v. Texas. 159 Te. 500X), 324 S W.2d 167 11959) Carolina, (regon, Rhode Island. South C(arolina. Texas subhject 6. J. ArNt iL. The Right of' Property in [Tidce Wlaerrs- and in the to the quahlfication stated in the text accompanying note 35, Soil and Shores IhereofJ 19-21 (2d ed. I47) I hereinafter cited Ira) nd Washington F. Maloney & R Ausness, Fhe se as Angell]. 2 t1. Fiffany, The l.aw oJ Real Properlr �660h (3d fal Legal Signilicancef othee an ih ater Line in Coiasal ed. 1939). HBoundar .flapping. 53 N.C.L. Rev 185. 21)(-2{)2 (1974 [hereinafter cited as Maloney & Ausnesst. Since that article 7. 78 Am. Jur.2d, Waters �380 (1975): S. Moore, .4 IliAtory uff was written. the Georgia Supreme Court decided that wetlands the hFtreshore tand the L.aw Relating Thereto 667 -892 (188) extending to the mean high-water line are publicl, owned. State [hereinafter cited as Moore]. v..-lhrnore. 23 (a 4(01. 224, S.E. 2d 334 11976). 8. Magna Carta, Clause 33, as translated in Thorme. Kurland, 33. Delaware. Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennscl- Dunham & Jennings, The Great Charrter (1965): 2 American vania and Virginia. Maloney & Ausness, supra. note 32. at Law of Property �9 49 (Casner ed. 1952); Angell., supra. note 201 6, at 23-25: Note, The Public Trust in Tidal .Areas: A Sometime 34 Id. at 202. Submerged Traditional Doctrine. 79 Yale L.J. 762. 765-766 35. Id. at 201-202. (1970) [hereinafter cited as The Public Trust in Tidal reasl 35. Id. at 201-202. 9. MooRE-. rupra, note 7, at 182. 36. Id. at 212. 10. Id. at 433. 37. 78 Am.Jur.2d, Waters ��406.-415, 419, 432 (1975); 66 C.J.S., Navigable Waters ��80-82 (1196h6): Maloney & Ausness. supra, note 32, at 224-226, 234-236. However. if the littoral owner 12. I R. POWELL. The Law of Real Proper!n �44 (Rev. ed. 1977) himself artifically causes the accretion, he, in general. does [hereinafter cited as Powell]. not obtain title to the accreted land as against a state's competing 13. Id. at �45. claim. 78 Am.Jur.2d, Waters �410 J 1975): 65 C.J.S., Navigable 14. 78 Am.Jur.2d. Waters �381 (1975): 65 C.J.S.. Navigable Waters Waters �8212(2) (1966): Maloney & Ausness, s'upra. note 32. �94 (1966). at 235. 15. 3 American Law of Property �12.32 (Casner ed. 1952); 78 38. California follows the minority rule. See, e.g.. Carpenter v. AmJur.2d, Waters ��381. 386 (1975): 65 C.J.S., Navigable Ciat of Santa Monica. 63 Cal. App.2d 772. 147 P.2d 964 (1944). Waters �10 (1966); I Powell, supra. note 12, at �163 at 703. 39. 78 Am.Jur.2d, Waters ��406. 411 (1975): 65 C.J.S.. Navigable 16. Pollard's Lessee v. flagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845). The Waters �86 (1966). court recently reaffirmed and clarified the doctrine in Oregon 40. JUSTINIAN, supra, note 3. at 2.1.1-2.1.6. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (1977). 41. The Public Trust in Tidal Areas. supra. note 8, at 769-770. 17. 67 Stat. 29 (codified at 43 U.S.C. �1301 et seq.). 42. Id. at 774-788. 18. 67 Stat. 462 (codified at 43 U.S.C. �1331 et seq.). 43. 78 Am.Jur.2d, Waters ��388, 389: The Public Trust in Tidal 19. 1 A. SHALOWITZ, Shore and Sea Boundaries 181 (1962) [hereinaf- Areas, supra, note 8, at 787-789: Maloney & Ausness. supra, ter cited as I Shalowitz]. note 32, at 188-193. 20. Id. at 192. 44. 146 U.S. 387 (1892). 21. SHALOWITZ, supra, note 19, at 87-89, 94-97: 2 A. SHALOWITZ, 45. 146 U.S. at 452. Shore and Sea Boundaries. 56-75, 363-365 (1964) [hereinafter 46. J. SAX, The Public Trust Doctrine in iVatural Resource Law: cited as 2 Shalowitz]. NOS is the successor to the agencies Effective Judicial Intervention. 68 Mich.L.Rev. 471 (1970): formerly known as The Survey of the Coast (1807-1836), the The Public Trust in Tidal Areas, supra. note 8, at 784-785. Coast Survey (1836-1878) and the Coast and Geodetic Survey 47. arks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 491 P.2d 374, 98 Cal.Rptr. (1878-1970). The agency's origins may be traced to the Act 790 (1971). of February 10, 1807, authorizing the president "to cause a survey to be taken of the coasts of the United States .. . " 48. 78 Am.Jur.2d, Waters ��93, 94, 260-262, 269. 271. 276 (1975); 2 SHALOWITZ at 4. 65 C.J.S., Navigable Waters ��61-64. 67-71 (1966). 22. 1 SHALOWITZ., S.pra. note 19, at 89-90 (footnotes omitted). 49. See, e.g.. Colberg. Inc. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Works. 67 Cal.2d 408, 432 P.2d 3, 62 Cal.Rptr. 401 (1967). cert. denied, 23. CouLsos & FORBES, The Law of Watters 23-24 (6th [Hobday3 23ed~~~~~. 1952). ~~~~~390 U.S. 949 (1968). ed. 1952). 50. 65 C.J.S., Navigable Waters ��72-79 (1966). 24. I SHALOWITZ, supra. note 19, at 90 (Fig. 20): 2 Shalowitz, supra. 5. 6 5 C.J.S., Navigable Wat ers ��72-79 (1966). note 21, at 49. 51. 30 Stat. 1151 (codified at 33 U.S.C. �401 et seq.). 25. Borax, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 22 (1935). 52. 83 Stat. 852 (codified at 42 U.S.C. �4321 et seq.). 26. Lord Hale's treatise, however, apparently was not published 53. 86 Stat. 816 (codified at 33 U.S.C. �1251 et seq.). until 1787 in I Hargrave's Tracts. Moore, supra, note 7, at 318. 27. M. HALE. DeJure Maris, Cap. VI, as reprinted in Moore, supra. note 7, at 370. 392-393. See also I SHALOWITZ, supra, note 19, at 91. EDITOR'S NOTE 28. 1 SHALOWITZ, supra, note 19, at 91 (footnote omitted). 29. 16 Encyclopaedia Brittanica 362 (1958). The next article in this series will summarize federal 29. 16 Encyclopaedia Brittanica 362 (1958). 30. 4 De G.M. 4& G. 206, 43 Eng. Rep. 486 (1854). jurisdiction and key federal laws with respect to the 31. 296 U.S. 10(1935). coastal zone, and subsequent articles will deal with 32. Alabama. Alaska, California (subject to the "neap tide" rule the individual coastal states' basic rules of law on to be discussed in a later article in this series), Connecticut, a state-by-state basis. 20 SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell' Part :.' The Federal Government's Expanding Role BY3 PET[ER H. F. GRABER Office of the Attornel GLIeneral. State of' Cali/b6rnia San Francisco. California S INCE WORLD WAR 11, the Federal Government has A. The Commerce Clause played an increasingly important role in the emergence - The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate Corn- of new rules of law relating to the coastal zone.' Tech- merce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, nological developments facilitating petroleum drilling fur- and with the Indian Tribes. "- The commerce clause is the ther offshore. threats to diminishing fisheries resources, basis for much federal legislation affecting the coastal zone. environmental concerns about oil spills, pressures for more An 1824 U.S. Supreme Court decision established the effective management of the coastal zone-these are some Federal Government's paramount authority to regulate nav- of the reasons behind the plethora of new federal laws. igation under the commerce clause. In Gibbons v. Olen,4 As an influential 1969 study stated: the court held that a New York statute, which gave Robert Fulton, the famous inventor and engineer, and others the . . . The technological capability to exploit oil and right to the exclusive navigation of that state's waters with gas offshore is an example of a new environment created "boats moved by fire or steam." was repugnant to the by technology, which. in turn, has had substantial impact commerce clause and thus unconstitutional. upon the development not only of domestic law, but also of international law. "The new environment required definition of own- B. The Supremacy Clause ership and boundaries of submerged lands surrounding the United States . and from the new technological The landmark Gibbons case also involved application of capability has grown major litigation in the United the supremacy clause,' which provides in part: States, and led to the Geneva Conferences on the Law of the Sea in 1958 and 1960."' "This Constitution. and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof: and all Trea- Under our dual federal/state system of government, some ties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority facet of federal law-a constitutional provision, a treaty or of the United States. shall be the supreme Law of the international agreement, a congressional act, a federal Land;. agency's rule or regulation or a federal court's decision- may be pivotal in resolving a legal problem arising within Under the supremacy clause and the related doctrine of the coastal zone. When confronting such a problem, there- federal preemption, federal law prevails when a state's reg- fore, the possible applicability of federal law should be ulatory scheme is in conflict with a federal scheme and they considered. cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together. C. Admiralty Jurisdiction U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS In general, the federal courts rather than the various The Constitution of the United States provides the un- states' courts have jurisdiction over admiralty cases. The derpinning for the Federal Government's expanding role in Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United the law of the coast. The following summarizes some sig- States extends to "all Cases of admiralty and maritime nificant constitutional provisions. Jurisdiction."" Congress in 1789 declared that the federal district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil causes of *This is th secand in a seies ,,f artcles presenting a capsule ,ersi,, of rthe cnempororv la. admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 7 But an exception per- of the coast for non.attrrneys This article brielv sunmmari:es ome key federal la.ws aIfectrng the coartala:on. Spate hlmitlr unspreclude yn erniuonof ,othe rreleant feeraol ,stes. ... trea mits ordinary lawsuits, as distinguished from admiralty pro- and international agreements. judiial deusconr, and adrmnstratise rules and regulations. The to be state courts or as civil cases n view expressed in this and the other articles in the series d not ncessar reflect th,,se f the ceedings brought in c Office of the Attorney General. Stare of Lalifornia, or cf anyv other ageonv oflhe Stare of Calrfrnia. federal courts. 16 SHORE AND BEACH I). Treaty Power lands beneath navigable waters within their respective Entering into treaties and international agreements af- state boundaries, including certain submerged lands; fecting the territorial sea. the contiguous zone and the high and seas is clearly a function of the national government instead 2. Defines the submerged lands confirmed to the coastal of the individual states. The Constitution provides that thc states in terms of state boundaries as they existed president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and when the state became a nmbur of the Union or as Consent of the Senate. to make treaties, provided two thirds previously approved by Congress. hut not extending ~ofk ~ ~ ~ ~ t n p t u .seaward from the coastline of any state more than I marine league (3 geographical miles) in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans or more than 3 marine leagues KEN' FEDERAI, STATUITES (9 geographical miles) in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the act. there has been considerable subsequent Acts of Congress with an impact on the coastal zone date litigation between the United States and various coastal from the early days of the United States. But the post-World states particularly as to the location of baselines for d- ternining the areas covered by the statute, because of the War II era has witnessed an unprecedented number of such rnn the areas covered the statute because of the value of these lands. federal statutes. Aside from the venerable, and still very important. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the following C. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 checklist locuses on some of the more significant recent statutes. A few months after the Submerged Lands Act was passed, Congress approved the Outer Continental Shelf Lands A. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Act.'7 This statute defines the term "outer Continental This statute," based upon the authority of the commerce Shelf" (OCS) as "all submerged lands lying seaward and clause of the Constitution. was intended to prevent obstruc- outside of the area beneath navigable waters as defined in tions to navigation."' The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . Ithe Submerged Lands Act] . . and of which the administers the act by issuing permits. The act applies to subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States and are piers. breakwaters and other structures as well as to dredg- subject to its jurisdiction and control: . . ." ing and filling. Clearly, technological developments making offshore Traditionally, the Corps has been primarily concerned petroleum drilling more practicable and the Federal Gov- with protecting navigation. But under Zahel v. Tabbhh. the ernment's desire to derive revenue fron the OCS motivated Corps is required to consider ecological factors and may passage of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The deny a permit when it finds that a proposed project would statute provides that the secretary of the interior shall ad- danmage the ecology even if it would not obstruct navigation. minister the act's provisions relating to OCS mineral leases. B. Submerged Lands Act of 1953 I). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) For manv decades following creation of the Union. it was assumed that the coastal states owned the submerged lands alon their coasts subject to the paramount federal navi which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony alon their coasts subject navi- between man and his environment: . . . and lestablishing] gational servitude and U.S. admiralty and treaty powers. n nvironmentis a Council on Environmental Quality."2" The act is admin- In the 1930s. however, sonime federal officials urged that the Federal Government assert ownership of these lands. istered by the Environmental Protection Agency. After World War 11, the Federal Government filed law- NEPA states that "it is the continuing responsibility of suits against California. Louisiana and Texas. alleging that the Federal Government to use all practical means, con- the United States owned the disputed strip. In a series of sistent with other essential considerations of national policy, actions known as the SulhnergedLands Caeses,'2 the Federal to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions. pro- Governml~ent was successful in the U.S. Supreme Court. grams, and resources" so that, among other things. the In 1947 the court. in Uhnitd Suatcrs v. California.'3 held: nation may "achieve a blance between population and re- source use which will permit high standards of living and . . . California is not the owner of the three-mile a wide sharing of life's amenities: . mareinal helt alone its coast and . . . the Federal Gov- The statute requires environmental impact statements by emrnment rather than the state has paramount rights in and officials responsible for "major Federal actions signifi- poNcr over that belt. an incident to which is full do- cantly affecting the quality of the human environment:" the minimon over the rcsources of the soil under that water statements are to cover such items as "(i) the environmental area. including oil.""' impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environ- mental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal Indeed, many commentators believe it was the expanding be implemented, land] (iii) alternatives to the proposed ac- development ot offshore oil production, coupled the coastal tion, .. states' claim of ownership to minerals within the submerged lands, that precipitated the Subhmirged Lands Cases. E. Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA) The Supreme Court's 1947 Cali/ornia opinion and other This act23 was intended to help prevent oil pollution by decisions involving Louisiana and lexas.'5 prompted Con- granting the Coast Guard authority to control ship move- grcs to enact the 1953 Submerged Lands Act,"' which in ments and to improve ship design. construction and oper- effect nullities major portions of the court's decisions. In ation. part. the act: Title I of PWSA24 grants the Coast Guard sweeping power I. Relinquishes to the coastal states U.S. title claims to over the movements of ships in hazardous areas or when JANUARY 1981 17 there is adverse weather, poor visibility or heavy traffic. But CZMNA imposes c ertain requircnments itr the states. The Tank Vessel Act25 was amended by Title II of PWSA, For example. a state's management program must include which deals with hulk cargo vessels carrying oil. inflamma- a designation of the houndaries of the coastal zone subject ble or combustible liquids, or other hazardous substances. to the program. an inventorv of the areas of particular con- Title II directs the secretary of transportation to develop cern. broad guidelines on priority of uses in those areas, regulations tfor ship design. construction, alteration and re- lists of permissible land and water uses. and controls over pair, for the express purpose of protecting the marine en- such permissible water uses. vironment. In addition. CZMA requires that public hearings be held in developing the program. that the governor approve the F. . Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments program and that a single state agency receive and admin- of 1972 (FWPCA) istcer the federal grants for the program. On the other hand. The purpose of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act CZMA does not direct the state to prefer certain uses in the Amendments of 197726 is to "restore and maintain the coastal zone or what it should do in the zone. chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."'27 I. Deepwater Port Act of 1974 Although FWPCA generally prohibits "the discharge of Federal liability for oil discharges at or near deepwater pollutants."-2 it provides for a system of permits to be ports is imposed by this act.'" A "deepwater port" is de- administered by the Corps of Engineers to control the dis- fined, in part, as "any fixed or floating manmade structures charge of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters.2" other than a vessel. or any group of such structures, located The act prohibits most discharges of oil in the coastal beyond the territorial sea and off the coast of the United zone and imposes criminal penalties for a discharger's fail- States and which are used or intended for use as a port or ure to notify the Federal Government of a spill. It also terminal for loading or unloading and further handling of provides that the Federal Government will be liable when oil for transportation to any State. ... "'5 it removes oil, and requires the president to prepare and The act prohibits oil discharges from a vessel within a publish a national contingency plan for the removal of oil. safety zone established around a deepwater port, from a FWPCA jurisdiction is broad, including both onshore and vessel that has received oil from another vessel at a deep- offshore facilities as well as vessels, and extending ocean- water port or from a deepwater port. It imposes penalties ward to the U.S. contiguous zone as well as the territorial and liability for violations. 36 sea. (See Ref. I.) A deepwater port licensee's liability is unlimited, under certain circumstances, if the discharge of oil from the port G. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act or a vessel moored there is due to gross negligence or willful of 1972 misconduct. In other instances, a licensee's liability is lim- Under this statute.'" also known as the Ocean Dumping ited to $50 million. Act, a permit is required when any material is to be dumped The liability of the owner and operator of a vessel is also into the territorial sea and contiguous zone of the United unlimited, under certain circumstances. for cleanup costs States. (See Ref. i.) and damages resulting from a discharge of oil from a vessel Dumping must not "unreasonably degrade or endanger within a deepwater port's safety zone or from a vessel that human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine envi- has received oil from another vessel at such a port. If the ronment. ecological systems, or economic potentialities.""3 discharge was not due to gross negligence or willful mis- Permits for dumping dredged material are issued by the conduct, the liability is limited to the lesser of 5150 per secretary of the Army, and for other material, by the ad- gross ton or $20 million. ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The act establishes a Deepwater Port Liability Fund to compensate injured parties when cleanup costs and damages H. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) from a discharge exceed these liability limits or when the By this act32 the states are given an incentive (in the form port licensee's owner or operator are exonerated from lia- of federal funds), although not required. to develop coastal bility. A fee of 2 cents per barrel, collected from the owner zone management programs. The act was amended in 1976, of the oil when it is loaded or unloaded at a deepwater port, raising the federal share in program development cost from finances this fund. 66 2/3 to 80 percent.33 The CZMA, as amended, requires state programs to contain planning processes for energy J. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 facilities, shoreline erosion and beach access. (FCMA) Coastal energy impact program funding is the main in- In enacting FCMA,37 Congress found that a national fish- ducement to states to cooperate with the Federal Govern- ery conservation and management program is "necessary ment in coastal energy development. Because energy self- to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to in- sufficiency became a national goal after the 1973 oil em- sure conservation, and to realize the full potential of the bargo. the 1976 CZMA amendments were designed to en- Nation's fishery resources.'" courage new or additional OCS oil and gas production. Under this statute a wide fishery conservation zone be- The Office of Coastal Zone Management, National yond the territorial sea was established. The limits of the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of zone are defined as follows: Commerce, administers CZMA. Although that office has issued regulations to implement CZMA, neither the act itself " . . The inner boundary . . . is a line coterminous nor its administration indicates that the Federal Government with the seaward boundary of each of the coastal States. has attempted to preempt the field of coastal zone manage- and the outer boundary . . . is a line drawn in such a ment. manner that each point on it is 200 nautical miles from 15 SHORE AND BEACH the baseline from which the territorial sea is mca- The convention provides that "the method of straight sured."' baselines joining appropriate points" along a "deeply in- dented" coast line may be used in determining the breadth FCMA asserts the United States' exclusive fishery man- of the territorial sea, but restricts its use to certain geo- agement authority over all fish, except for highly migratory graphical situations. The convention specifies that "the nor- species. within the 200-mile fishing zone."" mal baseline . . . is the lowwalter line . . . as marked on Even further seaward. the act claims U.S. authority over large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal" na- (1) "anadronomous species." or "species of fish which tion. spawn in fresh and estuarine waters of the United States In general, subject to qualifications. the United States has and which migrate to ocean waters." and (2) "Continental claimed a 3-mile territorial sea. although now asserting a Shelf fishery resources." defined as certain species of coral. 200-mile fishery conservation zone. crab. abalone. sponges and other organisms. in "the sub- For the convention's definition of the term "contiguous marine areas . . . to a depth of 20)( meters or. beyond that zone." (see Ref. I ). limit. to where the depth of superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of such areas."41 The law provides that fishing by a non-U.S. vessel will CONCLUSION not be authorized within the fishery conservation zone or for anadronomous species or Continental Shelf fishery re- The Federal Government-through statutes enacted by sources beyond that zone except under international fishery Congress. decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and other agreements and permits.4 2 federal courts. international agreements, and rules and reg- FCMA mandates the creation of eight Regional Fishery ulations promulgated by administrative agencies-is in- Management Councils and requires them to prepare fishery creasingly involved in the development and implementation management plans. which must be consistent with the na- of the law of the coast. Awareness of this expanding body tional standards for fishery conservation and management of federal law is essential to professionals from various stated in the act.4' disciplines involved in coastal zone matters. KEY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS REFERENCES Under the Constitution's treaty power. the United States I1. The term coastal one as used in this article generally refers to the has entered into a number of international agreements af- strip of tidelands and suhmerged lands along the coast of the United States and the adjacent uplands. Sec the first artnicle in this series. fecting the coastal zone. The following summarizes several Shore and Beach. Vol. 48, No. 4. October 1980. p. 14. International of these agreements. la . a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this article. defines various oceanic zones by terms that are used in some of the federal A. Convention on the Continental Shelf laws summarized herein. The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. 15 U.S.T. 16(06. T.I.A.S. 5639. defines the This convention . accomplished at Geneva in 1 958 was territorialsea as "a belt of sea adjacent to [a coastal nation's] coast.' the first international agreement on rules for the exploration without specifying the breadth of the belt The Convention on the and exploitation of natural resources in those areas defined High Seas. 13 U.S.T. 2312. T.I.A.S.52(X}. defines high seas as "all as the continental shelf. The convention went in force for parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters" of a coastal nation. The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. supra. defines the contiguous zone as The term "continental shelf" is defined broadly as '(a) a portion of the high seas which "maN not extend beyond twelve miles the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea. to a measured." depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit. to where the 2. COMMISSIO t)N MARINI SCtIENCI:. Engineering and Resources. Report depth of the superjacent uwpaters admits of the exploitation of the Panel on Management and Development of the Coastal Zone of the natural resources of the said areas; (b) to the seabedl. 3. 3. U.S. Const.. an 1. �8, el. 3. and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts 4. 22 U.S. (9 W'hat.) 1 (1824) of islands." ~~~~~~~~~~of islands."'~ s ~5. U.S. Const.. an. vt. cl. 2. The convention gives the coastal nation exclusive sov- 6. U.S. Const.. art. VI 2. 6. U.S. Const.. an. Ill. �2. ereign rights over the continental shelf, subject to certain ~~~~. t . . ., . -, , 7 ~ ~ ~7. I Stat 76: codified . a s modifie d. a t 2' U.S.C. �1333. limitations to protect navigation. fishing and the conser- . U.S Coni.. ar I. �2 . 2 vation of living resources of the sea. "for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources." This coun- 9. 30 Stat. 1151, 33 U.S.C. 2 401 el .q. I0. wi.sc(n.in v. Illinoi.. 278 U.S. 367 11929.) try exercises those rights under the Outer Continental Shelf II. 430 F. 2d 199 15th Cir. 197(}). cert. denied. 401 U.S. 91( (1971 ). Lands Act summarized above. 12. These cases are sometimes erroncously referred to as the Tidelands B. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Canse., but did not involve questions of the title to the tidelands. i.e.. ~~~~~~~~~~~Contiguous Zone ~lands between the lines of mean high and mean low water. 13. 332 u.s. 19 and 804 11947). Under this convention.45 also produced at Geneva in 1958 14. 332 U.S. at 38-39 and effective as to the United States on September 10. 1964, 15 United States v Louisiana. 3334 U.S. 699 (1950}; United State.i v. a nation's sovereignty "''extends. beyond its land territory Te.is. 339 U.S. 707 (1950). and its internal waters. to a belt of sea adjacent to its coast. 16. 67 Slat. 29. 43 U.S.('. �13011 et seq. described as the territorial sea." For the convention's def- 17. 67 Stal. 462. 43 U.S.C. �1331 et .leq. inition of the term "territorial sea." (see Ref. I). IX. 43 U.S.C. �1331(a). JANUARY 1981 19 I~~~~~~ St M* 04kb. ~ .1 42 1 et seq. A,. A. kat. iW3. JO �1~C.*454. '4.1N 42 1'.S.C7 *421, 34. 88 Stat. 2126. 33 U.S.C. 11501 et ~Eq. * 21. 42 U..C 4332(b. SS. 33 U.s-C. 12502 1 O). *.. 22. 42 u.s.c. 44332. 36. 33 UJ.S.C- �1517. 23. 86 Slat. 424, 313 U.S.C. 11221 et seg. 31. 90 Slat.- 331, 16 U. S.C. I1801 In 24.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. Si.3. 16 U..S.C. 1 801 a), 25. 46 U.S.C. �391a el seq. A9 16 U.s.c. AwIs. 26. 86 SWa. am6 p~ U.S.C. *21251 elsrq. 40. 16 U.S.C. llaSOM). 1811. 1813. 27. -I .S.C �12,540a. 41. 16 U.S.C. *�ISO1b), 1s020), la). 1A). 1822, 1813. 28. 33 LI.S.C. 4 1.11I(a), 42. 16 U.S. C. *1821. 29. 33 U.S.C. �1.344. 43. 26 U.S.c. P*I85l-1855. 30. 86 5Sta. 10521..33 U.S.C. � 1401 orseq. 44. I5 LJ.S.T. 471. T.I.AS, 55fl 31. 33 U.S.C. *P22(a). ~~~~~~45. ISU.S.T. 1606. T.1A.S. 5639, 32. 86 Slat. 1280, lb U.S.C. *13451 fs-eq. 20 *SHORE AND SEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part III: The California Approach BY PETER H. F. GRABER Office of the .4ttorney General, State of (Calfhrnia .Saan Francisco, (Callzfrnia C .l IFORNIA'S CO..ST-rHNE, stretching almost 1,100 "coastal zone" as that term is defined by the California miles along the Pacific Ocean, reflects the diversity Coastal Act of 1976. ' of the nation's most populous state. The contrasts are vivid: groves of giant redwoods along the damp north coast and sandy beaches in the dry, sunny southern part A. Uplands of the state, the highly urbanized seashore of Los Angeles County and sheep-grazing pastures overlooking the Most of the uplands along the state's coast are pri- ocean far from any freeways. vately held. but governmental entitites own a surpris- Similarly, there is a wide variety in California's ap- ingly large portion of these littoral lands.' The source of proach to different aspects of the law of the coast. Illus- title to a particular parcel of uplands may be significant trative of this is the contrast between the state's pace- in determining its waterward boundary. setting legal framework for coastal zone land-use man- Before statehood, most coastal uplands in the southern agement and the apparent perpetuation of an outmoded, and central parts of the state, from the Mexican border unscientific legal standard for demarcation of boundaries to Sonoma County, about 75 miles north of San Francis- between privately owned uplands and public tidelands. co, were included in privately owned ranchos conveyed Since 1972, when 55 percent of the voters approved by the Spanish and Mexican governments during the Proposition 20 and created the California Coastal Zone early 19th century. Under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Conservation Commissions,' the Golden State has been Hidalgo,6 ending the Mexican War, preexisting private in the forefront ofcoastal zone land-use planning. In 1975 land titles were protected. Later, the United States these commissions issued a 443-page California Coastal Board of Land Commissioners issued confirmatory ran- Plan, replete with colored maps and findings and policies cho patents upon presentation of evidence that the covering topics from natural habitats to energy facility ranchos had been validly granted. siting. Along much of the Northern California coast and in During the past eight years, these commissions and limited areas elsewhere, the Federal Government is the their successors under the California Coastal Act of 19762 original source of title to uplands. have processed about 50,000 permit applications for de- velopment projects within the coastal zone under de- tailed statutory, regulatory and judicial guidelines. B. Tidelands By contrast, it appears that California law persists in taking an imprecise, antiquated approach to delineating California became the owner of the vast majority of the the legal boundary between uplands and tidelands. The tidelands within its borders when it was admitted to the unscientific views of Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), who Union on September 9. 1850.7 The reason is that Cali- originated the early English common-law notion that fornia enjoys the same sovereignty and jurisdiction over "nepe" or "neap" tides should be considered "ordinary its tidelands as the original coastal states under a legal tides," still cast a shadow of uncertainty over tidal principle called the equal-footing doctrine. boundary demarcation in the state. Most of California's tidelands still are owned by the state or the Legislature's public grantees in trust. The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over the state- TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE owned tidelands.' About 70 cities, counties and other en- tities such as port and harbor districts administer grant- For convenience, California's coastal lands may be di- ed tidelands. vided into uplands, tidelands and submerged lands. This Starting in 1851, some tidelands were sold to private discussion includes lands underlying and adjoining San parties under acts limited to specific geographical areas, Francisco Bay although such lands are not within the such as portions of San Francisco Bay.'� Beginning in Ihl-,,, .. , ,1.,,...' .,,,. -- ..,1 .?" P--.n " ,-PIp ,.',, .. l... ......a ,, 1861, sales of tidelands to private parties were made .n ltn 7hlrtl,j, elr- p,,r , t .. ,nl. , ,n ,l ,,1d. t, r, , lJ, , , ' fl . lh1e* ,,:/l................thf ,/ :,,I l', ,,h,,, ..... *t,,''""~,,',,. ,,"",t,, ..,4/ under acts of general statewide applicability.n However, ...... spaelv,,, , .,.t. .r,,,th.,.n.,,,,s ... .. , ...",,, ......n.... ,,,,, a provision in the 1879 California Constitution2 prohibit- reliter1 T re Th, 1 li (Apre, . ". t ht , l h,[ ,l,/� I 4lb/f,,]t, th,s~ -,,, th- e , .- "I , t t/- I-/,, A,,,. 1...... . .,,,,l. b/,A ........ .......ns .'., - 4 0, Na. .,/ , .I.... ed sales within 2 miles of incorporated cities and towns, 20 SHORE AND BEACH and in 1909 a statute ended all sales of tidelands to pri- Court has referred to the "line of mean high tide" in de- vate parties.'" fining tidelands." Nevertheless, one recent appellate court decision and several legal writers assert that California's upland/ C. Submerged Lands tideland boundary is determined by using only the "neap tides."26 For many years. California assumed it owned the How did California's purported "neap tide" rule origi- lands within the 3-geographical-mile-wide strip seaward nate? lThe first reported California Supreme Court decis- of its tidelands. But in 1947 the U.S. Supreme Court ion referring to the "neap tides" was Tesrhermacher v. upheld the United States' assertation that its rights to Tlonmp.,n in 1861.2' It was written by Justice Stephen submerged lands were paramount." Congress reversed Field, who later served on the United States Supreme that decision by enacting the Submerged Lands Act of Court, where he authored the landmark opinion on the 1953,1 v,'hich confirms California's title to the 3-mile- common-law public trust doctrine, llini (Central Railroad wide strip. v. Ilinoi. 28 Although the state owns most of these submerged Justice Field's Tcsrhrniaybwer language may be traced to lands, some of them have been granted to local govern- the unscientific 17th-century writings of Sir Matthew mental entities, and others, especially in San Francisco Hale, who had equated "nepe" or "neap" tide with "or- Bay, have been sold into private ownership.' dinary tides" for property boundary purposes. Justice Field, in language unnecessary for the decision (dictum) stated: . .. The limit of the monthly Spring tides is. in one DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES sense, the usual high water mark; for, as often as those tides occur. to that limit the flow extends. But it is not the A. Upland/Tideland Boundary limit to which we refer when we speak oF'usual' or 'ordi- nary' high water mark. By that designation we mean the Generally, California follows the English common-law limit reached by the neap tides: that is, those tides which rule that the ordinary high-water mark," instead of the happen between the full and change of the moon, twice low-water line, is the legal boundary between privatelv in eyery twenty-four hours."29 owHned uplands and public lands. -However, because of' Justice Field's view of "neap tides" differs from the case law referring to the so-called "California rule" that generally accepted scientific definition. Technically, only the "neap tides"'"8 are used in determining the neap tides are tides of decreased or minimum range oc- boundary, the original source of title to the uplands may curring twice during each lunar month as a result of the be an important factor in boundary demarcation in any moon being in quadrature.20 gi\ven area. Scientific and legal scholars have criticized the Tesche- If. for example. the Federal Government conveyed the mahcFr "neap tide" language. In particular, the respect- uplands in question. it may be held under the U. S. Su- ed Aaron L. Shalowitz, an engineer/lawsyer for the Na- preme Court's 1935 decision in BIRora.i. I.l. v. f(.jif Lf tional Ocean Survey's predecessor agency for almost half Ar1l1Q8S9 that the boundary is to be determined bv using a century cited er.schemai-he as an example of an early the mean of ll the high waters over an 18.6-year tidal cy- decision containing "imperfections which suggest that cle. appropriate scientific data were not ... made available to On the other hand. if the land title deraigns from a the court," adding: Spanish or Mexican rancho granted before the United . . I'Jhe court ... uses the word nearl . .. in some States acquired the area, it may be contended that a tidal ambiguous sense to desigante a Ilurality of tides between full and change ... The court apparently thought ... datum derived by averaging ln/il the "high neap tides" is that all tides are either spring or neal) that the springs to be used in ascertaining the location of the ordinary occur but once a month: and that all other tides are neap high-water mark.20 tides and differ but little among themselves, making Both the federal Borax rule and the purported Cali- them the 'usual'or 'ordinary' tides. The most that can be fornia "neap tide" rule stem from judicial interpretations said for the decision is that the court was giving its own of the English common-law legal term "ordinary high- definition of neap tides as including all the tides that oc- water mark." Even before California was admitted to the cur between the full and change of the moon, excepting Union, its Legislature declared that "the Common Law the spring tides. of England . . . shall be the rule of decision in all the An analysis of California decisions after 7_ec hemacher Courts of this State."2' discloses that the term "neap tides" has been used in a In 1872 the California Civil Code was enacted, pro- nontechnical manner in most of the cases32 to denote viding in part: "usual" and/or "ordinary" tides rather than in the "Except where the grant under which the land is held scientific sense of tides of minimum range occurring as a indicates a different intent. the owner of the upland, result of quadrature. when it borders on tidewater, takes to rrdlina hiih-atcir Unfortunately, the latest decision by a California ap- marA :..22 Ipellate court containing a detailed discussion of the That statute and several others using the term "ordi- method of determining the upland/tideland boundary nary high-water mark""2 are still in the statute books. compounds the confusion. In 1966 the Court of Appeal. But some recent statutes do not use the terni. For exam- California's intermediate appellate court, decided 'eople pie, in defining the coastal zone, the California (:oastal v. I rn A',11otar ( .',., holding that the boundary is to Act of 1976 refers to "tlhe mcano high lid lint of the sea.t"2 be determined by using the 19-year mean of the "high And in various modern decisions, the state's Supreme neap tides." 'The court apparently attempted to de- APRIL 1981 21 fine "neap tides" in a technical manner; at best, its defi- vinter. In ad(ldition, there eCrc sho rt-l rimn ariati(ins ill nit ion is quasi-technical. Its opinion ldefines "neap tidesl " the xxidth of the helch s'lperinlmpsedl on the ieasonail as those occurring ui hrn the moon is in its first and third changes. I)ismissal of an alI) Cal 'I ollo-ing thi, retrial pre- quarters. 3' overlooking the fact that there is Isuills i taented potential alnd nee(ded il(li(ii;l recognilion of the lag of ia day or twvo between quldratlre and the mini- (ontetnmporary scientific knowledlge abouit i(l i seasonal mum or neal) ra.nge." ..\lthoulgh further appellate *olrt and short-term changes.4' examination ,ails sought after r; -rria;l. the alppeafl as found to be moot and the 1966 h;A'rt decision has not been overruled. CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE A. Scope of the Trust Doctrine B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location of the Shoreline California's courts have applied and greatly expanded the cornmon-law public trust doct rine. the c,n('cpt that The principle that accretion and erosion-gradual, the co on-law public trust doctrine, the concpt that imperceptible changes in the shoreline-result in a thepublic has the right to use tidal waters irrcspeutie of who owns the underlying lands movement of the legal boundarv between uplands anderling la The California Supreme Court in lf[rA, x I ' '/,u,, in tidelands is recognized in California,3a with one impor- tidelands is recognized in California, t 1971 broadly defined the contemporary scope (of the pub- tant qualification: the changes must be natural. In this regard, California differs from almost all other jurisdic- trust easelest so it encompasses far more than the traditional uses of commerce, navigation and fisheries. tions. tThe court held that the trust also includes "general rec- If the changes is caused directly by an artificial condi- reation purposes" and "the preservation of [tidciehnds] tion-such as the dumping of fill-the boundary is per- in their natural state, so that the ma sere as coloicl in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological manently fixed as existed in its last natural position. units for scientific study, as open space, and as environ- SMore difficult questions arise when the change is in- ment which provide food and habitat for birds and ma- directly due to an artificial condition, such as a break- ment which providefood and habitat for birds and ma- rine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and cli- water or groin. mate of the area.""a The Santa Monica breakwater (Fig. 1) has spawned considerable litigation about the legal effect of physical changes in the location of the shoreline. Built in 1933-35, B. Lands Subject to the Trust Easement this detached breakwater was intended to shelter a small-craft harbor. A large amount of sand gradually ac- creted along that portion of the shore near the break- most but all tide and submerge lands. Unless the trust water, because it interrupted the littoral current; erosion has been validly terminated, such lands owned by the occurred downcoast. Based on a trial court's finding that state and its legislative public grantees are subject to the these changes were due entirely to the breakwater, an ap- state and its legislative pub trust. pellate court held that artificially accreted lands belong3 decision of to the owner of the tidelands-the state or its legislative Fish (,; privately owned tidelands sold and patented public grantee-instead of the private owner of the uplandic grantee-instead of thepris.vate ownerofthe by the state under the general statutes of statewide appli- uplands.37 To avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation cability are also subject to the trust. when artificial shoreline changes have occurred, the state is authorized by statute 39 to enter into boundary line agreements with upland owners. Case law also upholds a r legislative public grantee's right to do so. " An unresolved problem in California, as elsewhere, is - the legal effect of natural seasonal and other short-term changes in the shoreline's location. In the same Kent deci-t i._ sion that complicated the so-called "neap tide" rule, the appellate court failed to recognize that such cyclical changes in the width of sandy beaches are typical along the state's coast. The court inferred that a Marin County beach was "some 8() feet wider in summer than in winter," and stated: "If these changes be constant, in off- setting pairs occuring annually, they can hardly be grad- ual and imperceptible, and thus cannot meet the defini- tions of natural accretion and deliction /-ic/."� When the htent case was retired, the unrefuted evidence Fig. 1. The Santao Monica breakwater has had a dramatic ef- fect on the nearby shoreline. The beach in the lee of showed that the seasonal changes were even more sub- th breakw rbter and upcoact from it (left) has stantial. The extreme range of horizontal movement of widened substantially since its construction, while the contour of mean high water during 21 surveys at vari- the beach downcoast has eroded. Under California ous times of the year was 161 feet. The seasonal changes law, artifically accreted lands belong to the state or in the width of the beach were not uniform from season its local public grantee of the tidelands. (Photo from to season, although the beach was consistently wider in Hydraulic Laboratory, University of California, the late summer or early fall and narrower during the Berkeley.) 22 SHORE AND BEACH However, until recently it was uncertain whether all comprehensive coastal access program. In ajoint staff re- San Francisco Bay tide and submerged lands that had port issued in 1980, the two agencies detailed their stand- been sold into private ownership by the Board of the ards and recommendations for coastal access. However, Tide Land Commissioners were free of the public trust. as of the fall of 1980, about 1,000 new accessways that had A 1915 decision'6 indicated that these lands were no long- resulted from Coastal Commission permit actions could er subject to the trust. But in 1980 the state's Supreme not be opened for public use because no governmental court reversed that ruling in a suit involving lands along entity or private association had assumed responsibility the Berkeley waterfront that has been sold almost 90 for maintenance and liability. years ago but remained unfilled. The court held that these lands, as distinguished from lands that has been filled and improved, are still subject to the public trust.'6 PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS California case law has often limited the littoral rights C. Termination of the Trust Easement of private owners of uplands. For example, although a private owner has the right of access to the adjoining tide California's public trust easement may be lawfully ter- and submerged lands as against other private parties, the minated by the Legislature in certain limited instances if state or its local public entity grantee may cut off that ac- specified criteria are satisfied. cess by filling those lands in a manner consistent with the In determining whether the public trust has been ter- public trust." minated, the courts look for a clearly expressed or neces- In one case, the owner of a beach resort, whose proper- sarily implied legislative intent to free any tide and sub- ty was denuded of its sandy accretions by construction of merged lands from the trust and carefully review other the Santa Barbara breakwater, was denied compensa- governmental actions claimed to have resulted in a lifting tion. The state's Supreme Court held that the duration of of the trust.'7 the resort owner's "littoral right to sandy water" was al- The California Supreme Court held in Cit) of Long ways subject to termination by the state, and that "It]he Beach v. .lIao1ll in 1970: withdrawal of the sandy accretions .... was an inciden- "... the state in its proper administration of the trust tal consequence of the state's use of the public domain for may find it necessary or advisable to cut off certain tide- a public interest that was at all times superior to private lands from water access and render them useless for trust littoral rights."64 purposes. In such a case the state through the Legisla- Under California law, a private littoral owner has no ture may find and determine that such lands are no long- right to wharf out beyond his own lands to navigable er useful for trust purposes and free them from the waters without the permission of the state or the appro- trust.'"4 priate governmental entity." A private owner of tidelands sold under the general statutes of statewide applicability cannot extinguish the public trust simply by filling and developing his prop- erty. As the state's Supreme Court said in 1971: "Recla- LEASING AND REGULATION OF COASTAL mation with or without prior authorization from the state ZONE LANDS AND WATERS does not ipso facto terminate the public trust...."Ls A. Leasing PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS State-owned tide and submerged lands may be leased by the State Lands Commission.5 Its predecessor agency The 1879 California Constitution contains this provi- began leasing these lands for mineral exploration and ex- sion about public access to and use of tidelands and the traction in the 1 920s. Such leases have been upheld by the waters covering them: courts as consistent with the public trust. "No individual, partnership. or corporation, claiming Local governmental grantees of tide and submerged or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, lands have general leasing powers68 as well as the author- inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall ity spelled out in their particular statutory grants. be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to de- stroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water;. "" B. Regulatory Functions The California Court cited this constitutional provi- sion and a number of statutes in its controversial 1970 Piecemeal filling of San Francisco Bay prompted crea- (;ion-Dirts, public access to the coast.""' In (;ion-l)ietz, the tion in 1965 of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and court held that when the general public has used a beach Development Commission,"9 a pioneering effort at re- or an accessway to the shoreline as if it were public prop- gional regulation of the use of tidal waters and the lands erty for at least five years with the owner's acquiescence, beneath them. This agency, which prepared a compre- the beach or accessway may be found to be impliedly hensive bay plan, issues permits for development in the dedicated to the public. Although the Legislature subse- bay and along its shore. quently curtailed the impact of (;io-l)iet.:,b2 the doctrine Along the open coast, and in other bays, harbors and of implied dedication still is an important means of as- estuaries, the California Coastal Commission and six re- suring public access rights in California. gional coastal commissions exercise similar regulatory The California Coastal Commission and the State functions."� Although the statewide commission will con- Coastal Conservancy are responsible for preparing a tinue, the regional commissions are scheduled for ter- APRIL 1981 23 minalion on June 30, 1981. California's nearly 70 local 1 867.t,. ch 415 i, p. 5017. I'nder thcse antI similar statutes (e e, lor- coastal jurisdictions are in the process of preparing local tmer Cal PolI (Code 3440-34881. the state surveyor general issued coastal plans, and will assume the regional commissionS p aet to tidelands sold by the state it private parties. 12. Cal. Coanst., art X, � 3 (former- art. XV. �3). permitting powers. 1. Cal Pub. Resources (:ode � 7991 frme Cal. Pol ( ode � 344 la). 14. 1 ,i' 'd .tat,'I v. (>dlbrnla, 322 U.S 19. 38-39 (1 94') I5. 67 Stat. 29); codified at 43 'S.(: � Ill ,) t Irq. REFERENCES 16. See, e.. (:Cal. Stats. 1867-6j8, hh 543.1 716; (:al Stats 186970. tlh 388, p. 541. 1. Proposition 20 was put on the November 1972 ballot through the iri- 17. Fr a Itrief discussion of the English common-law rule. see the first tiative process (i.e., voters' petition) after the California I.egislaure article in this series.Sh..rea,,n, Beah. Vol. 48. No. 4. ( )i tuber I Q), p. had failed to enact any coastline protection bill. When Proposition 17. 2() was passed, about 85 percent of the state's population of 20 mil- 18. See, i v WI. heril Ette C,., 242 Cal. App. 2d I 6, 11. I lion lived within 30 miles of the Pacific ()cean. (:Coastal regulation C:al. Rptr. 215 (1966). was fragmented under 15 counties, 45 cities. 42 state units and 70 19. 296 U.S. 10 (19)35). In HIrarv, involving a federal upland patent in federal agencies. Interestingly, the passage of Proposition 20 tame what is now Los Angeles Harbor, the U.S. Supreme Court held within two wveeks of the final approval of the federal Coastal Zone that ''/t/he question as to the extent of this federal grant. that i, as Management Act of 1972. By Proposition 21), the Ca;lifornia Coastal to the limit of the land conveyed, or the lboundarv between the Zone Conservation Act (Cal. Pub. Resources d 70 ) upland and the tideland. is necessarily a federal question." Id. ;at was adopted, creating a temporary California Coastal Zone Conser- was adopted, rreating a temporary California C:oalstal Zone Colnser- ?322. The decision mentions nothing about accretion or erosion after vation Commission and six regional commissions. See generally S the 1881 federal .atent, and it may be concluded that the court ap- SCOT'r, (Go, emrssg fiiforrniaml 's (Csii , Institute of Government Stud- plied federal law to determine the Initial waterward boundary of the tes. University of California (1975). upland parcel. The Iprinciple that state law controls as to the legal 2. Before the expiration of the 1972 act, the Legislature assured the con- effect of mhbr/ent physical changes in the westward botndary of tinuation of a state coastal zone land-use management program b lands conveyed under a federal patent was recenly reaffirmed in a approving the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Cal. Pub. Resources Supreme Court case involving a nontidal stretch of a navigable Code � 30010 et eq.), establishing the present California Coastal ricer. fite Land Board v. (.,,rv/o Vand & Grave .., 429 U.. 363, Commission, which is intended to be a permanent agency. and the 37-371 (1977). But the court did not okerrtle lnguage in Hughes v. six regional commissions, which are scheduled to relinquish their lhnn, 389 U.S. 291), 293 (1967), a case involving subsequent permit-processing powers to coastal counties and cities by.June 31), shoreline changes in oceanfront property conveyed by the United 1981, after local coastal plans are prepared and approved. States before Washington's statehood. holding that federal law in- 3. For a brief discussion of Lord Hale's views and the subsequent Eng- stead of state law governs the effect ofsuch changes on legal bound- -tries. lish and United State Supreme Court decisions defining the up- ares. land/tideland boundary, see the first article in this series. Shore and 20. Although the federal government issued confirmatory patents to Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4, October 1980, pp. 17-18. It is the opinion of these ranchos after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, state law some authorities that California uses only the "neap tides" in deter- rather than federal law controls the waterw'ard boundaries of prior mining tidal boundaries. For example, a respected title company Mexican grants. l .' ?lnelet flit/g .v. Los .-lngeei, 217 US. 217. lawyer asserted in the (Cahfirna State Bar 7,,rnal in 1972: "The'ordi- 227-234 (1910). California does not follow the civil-law rule that the nary high water mark' under California law. ....has repeatedly highest wash of the winter waves is the waterward boundary of been held to be the projection of the plane of the mean ofall the neap these rancho lands even though many upland parcels along the high tides upon the shore ......T. McKNIGHT, "Title to Lands in state's coast may be traced to such prior grants. California thus the Coastal Zone: Their Complexities and Impact on Real Estate differs from Texas, in which the line mean higher high water is the Transactions," 47 Cal. State Bar J. 408, 463 (1972). legal boundary when the original source of upland title is a prior 4. The California Coastal Act of 1976 defines the coastal zone. in part. Spanish of Mexican grant. See the first article in this series, .Shore as: ". .. that land and water area of the State of California from the rand Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4, October 1980, p. 18 (text accompanying Oregon border to the border of the Republic of Mexico. .. . extend- note 35). ing seaward to the state's outer limitofjurisdiction. including all off- 21. Cal. Stats. 1850, ch. 95. p. 219. shore islands, and extending inland generally 1,(1)0 yards from the 22. Cal. Civ. Code � 830 (emphasis added). mean high tide line of the sea. In significant ,oastal estuarine. habi- 23. See, e.g., Cal. Cic, Code � 670; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. � 2(77; Cal. Pub. tat, and recreational areas it extends inland to the major ridgeline Resources Code � 6357. paralleling the sea or five miles from the mean high tide line . . 24. Cal. Pub. Resources Code � 30103 (emphasis added). whichever is less, and in developed urban areas the zone generally 25. See, e.g., (Ca of BerA c/e v, .'spertsr (.'(,Jy, 26 Cal. 3d 515, 162 Cal. extends inland less than 1,100 yards R. 66Cal. Pub. Resources Rptr. 327, 606, P. 2d 362 (1980), cert. demned, 101 S. Ct. 119 (1980); Code � 3010)3. The definition specifically excludes the area under the Iari vv. Il'hane, 6 Cal. 3d251, 257-258,98Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P. 2d jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and I)evelop- 374 (1971); Ctivf el.sng Beach v. ManseI, 3 Cal. 3d 462, 48 n. 13,91 ment Commission. Cal. Rptr. 23, 476 P. 2d 423 (1970). 5. Accordingto a StateofCalifornia study, governmental entitiesown 26. Peoplev. lWm n. KentEitate Co., mpra, 242Cal. App. 2d 156, 161, 51 Cal. 408 miles of the state's 1,067 miles of shoreline, excluding harbors Rptr. 215; T. McKNIGHT, oipra, note 3, at 463; 52 Cal. Jur. 2d, and the Channel Islands. Cal. Dept. of P;arks and Recreation. f.Gi- Vaters � 794. pp. 439-441 (1959). toria (.,,tline P're ieoation and Recreation Iarh 62 (171 27. 18 Cal. 97 (1861). 27. 18 Cal. I1 (1861). 6. 9 Stat. 0922, T.S. No. 207. 28. 146 U.S. 387 (1892). 29. 18 Ca[. at 21. 7 Bor. ltd. v. (.'tr, l, .lnee, 296 U.S. 1, 15, 16, (133) e 29. 18 Cal, at 21. Ilarr f oen, 8 U.S. (Wall)57 6(6 (173) ct frthe 30. P. SCHURE\MAN, Tide land (.rrent (;unar 14,. National Ocean .\dmission of California Into the Union, 9 Stat. 452 Ilowever, lands Survey (1975 rev. ed.) under tidal waters granted to private flarties by Mexico before the 31. I A. SHALOWITZ, Shore and Sen Boundiriev 93 (1962). cession to the United States of the territory that became the State of 32. See, e.g., (Itei v. (.crreel .anitar, l)iil., 211 C:al. 310, 313, 26 P. 2d 308 (:alifornia did not pass to the state upon its admission. ^A1,ht v. (1933); Oa/andtv. E.'. L,,, I. umber (C'., 211 Cal. 16, 22-23. 292 P. I rated State, land .mn., 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891 ). 1076 (1930); F.A. llithn C.o. v. (.ts ofS,.nta C.'ru., 17 0 Cal. 436, 442, 15(1 8. For a brief discussion of the equal-footing doctrine. see the first ar- P. 62 (1915). tidcle in this series., Shore and Beabh, Vol 48, No.. 4, ( )ctober 1980. pp. 33. 242 Cal. App. 2d 156, 51 Cal. Rptr. 215 (1966). 15-16. 34. 242 Cal. App. 2d at 161 (emphasis added). 9. Cal. Pub. Resources Code � 6301. 35. Some courts have recognized this fact. For example, in discussing I 1. See, ,g., Cal. Stats. 1851, ch. 41, p. 30)7; Cal. Stats. 1851. h. 44. p. neap tides, the U.S. Supreme court in Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 311;Cal. Stats. 1867-68, ch. 543, p. 716; Cal. Stats. 1869-701, ch. 388, ospra, 296 U.S. at 23 n. 2 quoted a publication of the Coast and p. 541. Geodetic Survey as follows:" 'There is usually an interval of one or II. See, e g.,Cal. Stats. 1861,ch. 352, p. 355; Cal. Stats. 1861, ch. 3;6, p. two days between full moon or new moon and the greatest range of 363 (confirming prior sales of "reclaimable" tidelands tinder acts the tide. And a hlike intenrval is ound between the firtst and third quarters of providing for sales of swamp and overflow lands); Cal. Stats. the moon and the smallest tides.' " (Emphasis added.) 24 SHORE AND BEACH 36. See, F.., CIt sof OaAlandv. Butealm, 10 Cal. 83, 7, 179P. 170 (1919); 52. Cal. Stat. 1971,ch. 941,p. 1845, amending Cal. Civ. Code � 813and Strand Improvement Co. v. L.ne Bea.,h 173 Cal 765, 772.773, 161 P. 975 adding Cal. Civ. Code � 1009. But see Cal. Gov't Code �� 66477.2, (1916) 66478.11 (express dedication of access to coast in coastal subdi- 37. (arpenter v. (.t onf. Sana .lonra, 63 Cal App. 2d 772, 783-794, 147 P. visions). 2d 964 (1944); see also (.;' of 1., .4nrl/s v. .4ndermn, 2(106 Cal. 662, 53. See, e.g.. (.t' n!f. ewport Beach v. 'arr, 39 Cal. App. 2d 23, 28, 102 P. 666-667, 275 P. 789 (1929); Peopler . Ile,A-e, 179 Cal App 2d 823, 2d 438 (1940). One of the most potentially far-reaching decisions is 832-835, 4 Cal. Rptr. 334 (1960); 1. /.. .4thldt1, (.li/ v.. (itl ol .Sntan (.olhere. In,. v. State of Caol/frnna ex rel. Dept. ith 'A..., 67 Cal 2d 408, Alnua, 63 Cal. App. 2d 795, 799, 147 I'. 2d 976 (1944). 421, 425-426, Cal. Rptr. 401, 432, P. 2d 3 (1967). In that case, the 38. Cal Pub. Resources Code � 63Y7. California Supreme Court rejected the claims by shipyard owners 39. ()it f Long Beach v. .'lanmell, 3 Cal. 3d 462.91 Cal. Rptr. 23. 476, P. that they were entitled to compensation for curtailment of their ac- 2d 423 (1970); .Ituchenherger v.(.Cit ,f Santa .lotnrca, 206 Cal. 635, cess to the Stockton I)eep Water Ship Channel by construction of 642-643, 275 P. 803 (1929). two low-level freeway bridges spanning a connecting navigable 4(n 242 Cal. App. 2d at 16(1. The court incorrectly used the term "de- waterway next to their lands. liction": it may have meant "reliction."'' the process by which land 54 .,hrarmar (.. v. (,'t' of Santa Barbara, 23 Cal. 2d 1'70, 143 P. 2d 1 (1943). that had been covered by water becomes uncovered by the imper- 55. See, e.g . i)ana . .7arcon Street Il'harf(.i., 31 Cal 118, 120, 121 (1866); ceptible recession of the water. but probably meant "erosion." (.tit nf /aAlandv. Hlogan, 41 Cal. App. 2d 333.348-351, 106 P. 2d 987 41. For an excellent discussion of the scientific and engineering princ i- (1940). However, in MarA e v. ( 1'hitner. supra, 6 Cal. 2d at 263. wharf- pies involved in these fluctuations of the shoreline, seeJ.W..J()OHN- ing out is listed as a littoral right of the upland owner. This state- SON. "The Significance of Seasonal Beach Changes in Tidal ment, unsupported by any citation, seems to be incorrect under Boundaries." Shore and Beach. Vol. 39 No 1, April 1971, pp. 25-31. California law. 42. 6 Cal. 3d 251. 98 Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P. 2d 374 (1971). 56. Cal. Pub. Resources Code �� 6301 et seq., 6871 et seq., 69000. 43 6 Cal. 3d at 259-260. 57. Bonne v. innttisbur, 206 Cal. 148, 183, 189, 192, 273 P. 797 (1928). 44. 166 Cal 576, 584-585, 589, 592-594, 597-599, 138 P. 79 (1913). 58. Cal. Pub. Resources Code � 6305. 45. Knudion v. Aearnei. 171 Cal. 250, 152, P. 541 (1915). 59. Cal. (;ov't Code � 66600 et seq. 46. fC.n of Berkele- v. Superior Court, sulra, 26 Cal. 3d 515, 162 Cal. Rptr. 60. The present commissions operate under the California Coastal Act 327, 606 P. 2d 362, rert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 119. of 1976, Cal. Pub. Resources Code � 30(000 et seq. This act superseded 47. People v. California Fish Co., supra, 166 Cal. at 597. the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act, Cal. Pub. Resources 48. 3 Cal. 3d at 482. Code � 27000 et seq., which had been adopted by initiative (Proposi- 49 .ltal. v Wlhiltnt,. stpra, 6 Cal. 3d at 261. tion 20) on November 7, 1972, and expired January 1. 1977. 50. Cal. Const., art. X. � 4 (formerly art. XV, � 2). 51. Gtnn v. (.,t'f nfSanta Cruz and DLetz v. Kinc. 2 Cal. 3d 29, 84 Cal. Rptr. 152, 465, P. 2d 50 (1970). APRIL 1981 25 The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part 1I/: The Florida Approach BY IPETLtR H. F. GRABER (Office of the Attorney General, Slate ( Cah;lfornia Sarn Francisro, California F ROM ATpRIL 1513, when the Spanish explorer Juan TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE F Ponce de Leon landed near present-day St. Augustine, to April 1981, when the space shuttle Florida law defines the state's "coastal zone" as "that Columbia blasted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida's area of land and water from the territorial limits seaward history has been inextricably bound up with its coast. to the most inland extent of maritime influence. "2 These Jutting like a giant finger between the Atlantic Ocean coastal zone lands may be divided into uplands, tide. and the (;ulfof Mexico, Florida boasts the second longest lands and submerged lands.' coastline of any state - almost 1.2(10 miles, not counting bays and sounds.' Its beaches and coastal waters lure almost all of the 32 million tourists who visit the A. plands ,. ,. .,, ~~~~~~~~A. Uplands Sunshine State annuallv.y Florida's 1968 Constitution recognizes the coast's vital Private parties own most of the state's coastal uplands, , ., ~~~Private parties own most of the state's coastal uplands, role, declaring that title to beaches below the mean high- including the dry-sand portion of about 77 percent of all including the dry-sand portion of about 77 percent of all water line is in the state in trust for all the people. beaches. Although the Federal Government is the beaches) Although the Federal Government is the Reflecting the Legislature's concern, more than 20 chap- source of most private upland titles, some may be traced ters of the codified Florida Statutes relate to various legal to grants made by Spain before it ceded "all the .. . . ~~~~~~~~to grants made by Spain before it ceded "all the aspects of the coastal zone. It is these statutes that con- territories . . . known by the name of East and est .' . ~~~~~~~~~~~territories . . . known by the name of East and West stitute the heart of the proposed Florida Coastal.* . - stitute the heart of the proposed Florida Coastal Florida and] the adjacent islands" to the United States Management Program, drawn up under the Florida by an 1819 treat Coastal Management Act of 19784 and now awaiting federal approval. While Florida may have taken longer to develop its B. Tidelands Coastal Management Program than many states, it has been a pioneer in enacting wide-ranging coastal legisla- On March 3, 1845, Florida entered the Union, suc- ... . , , ,., , ~On March 3, 1845, Florida entered the Union, suc- tion, such as statutes providing for the establishment of ceeding the United States as owner of the tidelands with- ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ceeding the United States as owe.ner of the tidelands with- coastal construction setback lines,' coastal construction in its borders. Florida owns these lands by virtue of its '. .. . m~~~i its borders.6 Florida owns these lands by virtue of its control lines' and erosion control lines.' In addition, the sovereignty on an equal footing with the original states. 7~~ t = r A_ 9 X .rb ' . ~~~sovereignty on an equal footing with the original states.* Florida Coastal Mapping Act of 19748 clarifies coastal From 1856 to 1957, under certain circumstances, From 1856 to 1957, under certain circumstances, boundary demarcation. This progressive statute .'.. boundary demarcation. This progressive statute private upland owners could acquire title to adjoining authorizes the Department of Natural Resources to con- tidelands by wharfing or filling out to the channel. . tidelands by wharfing or filling out to the channel. duct a coastal boundary mapping program and to.. duct a coastal boundary mapping program and to However, the courts limited the private rights and title develop uniform specifications and regulations for tidal that could be acquired under statutes passed in 1856 and that could De acquired under statutes passed in I1856 and surveying. 1921, and those laws did not apply to bathing beaches.' On the other hand, Florida, unlike such states as The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement ' . . ' . .I ~~~The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement California, is still conveying its sovereign lands - tide Trust Fund now holds title to and has jurisdiction over s . ~~~~~~~~~~~Trust Fund now holds title to andas najurisdiction over and submerged lands that are held in trust for the public Florida's state-owned tidelands.' Under the state's -into private ownership.'0 And Florida's legislators and revised 1968 Constitution, as amended in 1970, sales of courts have been slow in expanding public access to the tidelands to private parties are permitted "when in the state's beaches.' public interest."2 C. Submerged Lands ' 7hl * I. fh. [w.urlh tn t .' rnt. ., atl [7t~ ~.#ptwnftn~7 nI rr7[,su/r trPiin .! the I of nttrnps.rr} Irate ~ efh �ot fos1!{n 1/ruluf 11:will w~ 'fThe Submerged Lands Act of 1953" confirmed ............ �,,aqt, lur . . . ..dhn ,....!....!thttt.......d.......l'rtlatd Florida's title to the submerged lands within a 3- mnlltol 7h~tt'~tu tltpe1%t~tltht, lndlh� tblhtrtl, t't nfiht �t~t , lm tetlJ}'lOdglvit, |fl~lh~lenflilttRnlhfl;lt.1 |a n/gho41r~o~vf Stay jfnnV.7/llfml<7n/nnoll~e~e71s,!bta~t11geographical-mile-wide belt along its Atlantic Ocean ItIl F'abe 7hz-, . .A. .,, ,,' -b 7P'.1 . 7 ., I-I It,, a.',,I, 1, tA, . ..,..... Icoast and a strip 3 marine leagues, or 9 geographical Olthl' tn, J o4l'. (Ictn, "' .V p. t.1-l" I I, J S1 . i..n. ' IQ'I. Pt 7.I). and I / 4,. *. 2.4 .1,/ .,, Pt .:', miles, in width along its Gulf of Mexico coast.2 JULY 1981 13 DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES the full and change of the moon."2' As atithority, the court relied in part on an 1861 California decision which was the origin of that state's outmoded "neap tide" A. Upland/Tideland Boundary irule.33 Unfortunately., despite the C(:oastal Nlapping Act 's precise, technically correct definition of the mean high- Both constitutionally and statutorily, Florida now water line, some Florida courts are still citing the .lliller recognizes the line of mean high water as the legal case and referring to "neap tides.'T boundary between privately owned uplands and adjoin- ing sovereign lands. ing sovereign lands. B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location The state's revised 1968 Constitution provides: "The Change in the Location title to lands under navigable waters, . . . which have not water lines /fir/, is held by the state ...2 beenalienatedT, includingbeahesd be low ean high Generally, under Florida law, the legal boundary bet- Detailed statutory standards for precisely deter- ween private uplands and sovereign lands shifts as the mining the location of this legal boundary are spelled out result of those gradual, imperceptible changes in the in the Florida Coastal Mapping Act of 1974.24 In a shoreline termed accretion and erosion,"3 but there are declaration of policy, the Legislature emphasized legislatively created exceptions to this rule. "... the desirability of confirmation of the mean high- Typically, when an accretion starts forming on the up- water line, as recognized in the State Constitution and land and moves seaward, the upland owner is vested with defined in � 177.27(15) as the boundary between state title to the accreted land unless he himself built struc- sovereignty land and uplands subject to private owner- tures that wholly or partially cause the accretion.36 But, ship as well as the necessity of uniform standards and in a case involving an accretion that originated in the sea, procedures with respect to the establishment of local moved landward and ultimately joined with the tidal datums and the determination of mean high-water mainland, a court disallowed an upland owner's claim to and mean low-water lines....26 the accreted land.37 The act defines "[m]ean high-water line" as "the in- Although the location of the legal boundary between tersection of the tidal plane of mean high water with the private uplands and sovereign lands usually moves with shore"26 and, consistent with National Ocean Survey accretion and/or erosion, several provisions in Chapter practice, provides: 161 of the Florida Statutes, the Beach and Shore Preser- " 'Mean high water' means the average height of the vation Act,s3 authorize the establishment of a permanen- high waters over a nineteen-year period. For shorter tly fixed boundary: the erosion control line.3" This line must periods of observation, 'mean high water' means the be distinguished from (1) the interim statewide coastal average height of the high waters after corrections are ap- constrction setback line and (2) the various counties' coastal plied to eliminate known variations and to reduce the construction control lines, which will be discussed below un- result to the equivalent of a mean nineteen-year v alue. "27 der "Leasing and Regulation of Coastal Zone Lands and Although the Coastal SMapping Act echoes the consti- Waters. " tutional rule that the mean high-water line is "the The law provides that, once a beach erosion control boundary between the foreshore owned by the state in its line along any segment of the shoreline has been es- sovereign capacity and upland subject to private tablished and a survey of the line's location has been ownership, "25 the act recognizes the inherent difficulty of recorded, surveying and mapping that line along some portions of ". . . title to all lands seaward of the . .. line shall be Florida's coastline. deemed to be vested in the state ... landl the common Therefore, the statute provides that an "apparent law shall no longer operate to increase or decrease the shoreline" - a line representing "the intersection of the proportions of any upland property lying landward of mean high-water datum with the outer limits of vegeta- such line, either by accretion or erosion or by any other tion" - may be used on maps in areas where the mean natural or artificial process, . . ." high-water line "may be obscured by marsh, mangrove, This erosion control line thus becomes a permanently cypress, or other types of marine vegetation."29 The act fixed boundary line. states, however, that the apparent shoreline depicted on The potential importance of such a permanently fixed approved coastal zone maps is not intended to represent beach erosion control line as a legal boundary is obvious the legal boundary, i.e., the mean high-water line.30 within the context of Florida's serious erosion problems The Bureau of Survey and Mapping of the Depart- and its numerous projects designed to preserve the beach ment of Natural Resources, which administers the and shore, to control erosion and to protect against the Coastal Mapping Act, has issued regulations which hazards of hurricanes. facilitate the implementation of the law. The result of the Erosion has plagued many parts of Florida's coastline. act and the regulations: a consistent statewide approach The state's proposed Coastal Management Program to surveying and mapping coastal boundaries. states that "the combination of man's actions and Before the 1968 constitutional provision and the 1974 natural processes have resulted in about 210 miles of a map act, Florida had followed the English common-law total of 782 miles of beach being in a 'critical' state of ero- rule that the ordinary high-water marksi divides the pri- sion, meaning there is a potential threat and endanger- vate uplands from sovereign lands. In 1940 the Florida ment to coastal buildings and public property ... [with Supreme Court had defined the legal term "ordinary another] 325 miles ... in a noncritical state of erosion.""' high-water mark" ambiguously in Miller v. Bay-to-Gulf, Florida's Beach and Shore Preservation Act encom- Inc. as "the limit reached by the daily ebb and flow of the passes a number of provisions relating to beach nourish- tide, the usual tide, or the neap tide that happens between ment and restoration and erosion control projects.4 The 14 SHORE AND BEACH -. - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~P - -~~ ~ - ~~-.-- - 4 '... ; ~ ~ ~S- lip~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F 4r~~~~~~~~~---~ 49-- 7 -- w.. -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 ~~~~~~~~:Lj i _ '-.~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~z K' Fig. 1. Beach fill at Bal Harbour Village, Florida. Bakers Haulover inlet and jetty in background. (Photograph by Smith Aerial Sur- veys & Assoc. Pompano Beach, Florida, for Bal Harbour Village. public policy thai a perm-anentik fixcd hc ifa I ero,;ion artifit hillv acc(reted lanrds iii O stale, and some control line, representing thle h Ou rIIdars' IIII hI iii V c leual comment ators quest ion it~ I onsi it utiotalit VA" soVereignty land .* . . and the upland propertiis idjw III1 Si rat lusive of' Ih lie It ( I lf I1rin ( I a rr ied out u nder the thereto,""' is anl integral part of tehis wenera d staitwutNr Beath and Shore Preservatioin .%( is the mammoth scheme.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ha bea nourishment and rest oral oil progamaon 1. U~nder it related 1965 stat ute, the I cLgislaiu rc ldvo fared miles-, of D~ade Countys' Aflarot i ( )(can shoreline ex- that ''additions. or acdri'tioiis to the' Uplanid ( iiiseil is redingi, fronm Bal Harbour VillaLge (Fig, 1) southerly erect ion of such works or irnprovenuent ,a grillins. let - t li ouih \I ianui Beach. Befoit. I his piir jeft rest ored Bat ties, breakwaters and seaw.alls under sl,itc per trilli shiall I aI :1hour' Village's beachles, thev hadt( lost sand because of remnain the property of' the slate if rnot pic is wl "ii'w l iat riad erosion, great% ;Is eeririied I~v man-made conveyed.'""A cciurt held that ilit- t;rtne %III riot lieali- ltt iii lures arid niodili aliorws of thc shiirelinc(."' An inlet plied retroactively to erosion (ormid pi~vt ijui j Iiogi i lit atliakt-rs Bllvr thlid li;iri~i~iiii'sinorthern limit, before its passage." '1here is rio rel)iir te-d '1,111uil,11t dr( I- "idrick~l 1pr(wel'itedl not inal lnittual citift from the Sion upfihuldilug thlis legislative deint ilirulllw nun1 title' ti ow1f ait1d .i IC"('r eJitedl Fmid, iouvirig northward JULY 1981 1 in the annual accretion cycle."47 Texas,"8 Florida does not have a specific statutory The completed 0.8-mile Bal Harbour Village portion scheme guaranteeing public beach access. of the project, which includes an erosion control line as a The State of Florida may acquire access routes to permanent fixed legal boundary, embraces an extended public waterways by using the power of condemnation jetty at Bakers Haulover, groins and fill back to under the Outdoor Recreation and Conservation Act of previously existing bulkhead lines. The project's restored 1963.6" In addition, the state may "provide matching beach and hurricane-protective dunes are designed to funds to counties and municipalities of up to 50 percent help buffer the high-rise hotels, condominiums and of the cost of purchasing, exclusive of condemnation, apartment houses lining the shore in Bal Harbour.48 rights-of-way for access roads or walkways to public beaches. ..o Another statutory method of providing beach access is in connection with erosion control, beach preservation FLORIDA'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE and hurricane protection projects under the Beach and Shore Protection Act. Money from the Erosion Control In 1968 the public trust doctrine - the common-law Trust Fund Account may be used to provide for this concept that the public has the right to use tidal waters access.6' irrespective of who owns the underlying lands - was Florida's courts have not been as eager as those of given constitutional status in Florida. The state's Con- California, Hawaii, Oregon, New Hampshire and Texas stitution, as revised in that year, provides that "title to to embrace various legal theories such as implied dedica- lands under navigable waters . . ., including beaches tion and custom to assure public coastal access. below mean high water lines /sic/, is held . . ., in trust for However, in its 1974 Tona-Rama decision,62 the Florida all the people."'4 Supreme Court gave at least a limited recognition to the From an early date, Florida case law has consistently ancient legal doctrine of custom as applied to beaches.63 recognized the public trust doctrine. In 1893, only a year The case arose when the defendant, the private owner after the United States Supreme Court's landmark of waterfront property in Daytona Beach, erected an ob- public trust decision, Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois," servation tower, whose circular foundation occupied the state's Supreme Court declared that sovereign lands about 230 square feet of the 13,500-square-foot dry-sand "were held, not for the purposes of sale . . ., but for the tract, for use in conjunction with a recreational pier. The use and enjoyment ... by all the people of the state for at owner of a rival observation tower filed suit, arguing in least the purposes of navigation and fishing and other im- part that the public had acquired an exclusive public plied purposes; . . ."' right to use all of the dry-sand tract. While denying that In view of Florida's magnificent beaches and the such a right existed, the court did state: economic significance of water-oriented tourism, it is not ". .. The general public may continue to use the dry surprising that the state's courts have declared that the sand area for their usual recreational activities, not trust encompasses bathing, swimming and other because the public has any interest in the land itself, but recreational uses along with the traditional commerce, because of a right gained through custom to use this par- navigation and fishing. For example, in a 1939 opinion,52 ticular area of the beach as they have without dispute the Florida Supreme Court rhapsodized: and without interruption for many years.'"' "There is probably no custom more universal, more Nevertheless, the majority of the court in Tona-Rama natural or more ancient, on the sea-coasts, not only of found that defendant's observation tower was "consis- the United States, but of the world, than that of bathing tent" with the public's recreational use of the beach, and in the salt waters of the ocean and the enjoyment of the thus refused to order destruction of the tower."6 wholesome recreation incident thereto. The lure of the The proposed Florida Coastal Mlanagemnt Program, ocean is universal; to battle with its refreshing breakers a recognizing that "opportunities to obtain access for delight. Many are they who have felt the lifegiving touch swimming, fishing, boating, and the general enjoyment of its healing waters and its clear dust-free air.... The of the coast are diminishing" while "demands on the people of Florida - a state blessed with probably the coast are increasing rapidly," recommends a number of finest bathing beaches in the world - are no exception methods of improving public access." to the rule.... We love the oceans which surround our State. We, and our visitors too, enjoy bathing in their refreshing waters . . "1 Conservation of natural resources was legislatively PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS recognized as another public trust purpose in a 1967 bulkhead statute.'4 Private upland owners in Florida enjoy the usual Despite the public trust doctrine, sales of tidelands un- common-law littoral rights of access to the adjoining tide der various general statutory schemes have been and submerged lands.67 Moreover, Florida statutory law judicially upheld in Florida.5" now provides that these owners have qualified preferen- tial rights to purchase the adjacent sovereign lands from the state."' The courts have upheld the additional littoral right to PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS an unobstructed view from the upland parcel over the tidelands to the waters beyond. In one decision, the Unlike California,"6 Florida has no state constitutional Florida Supreme Court balanced this right, claimed by provision manifesting a strong public policy of affording the owner of a lot located on a long artificial peninsula of public access to its coast. And unlike Oregon"' and dredged-in fill, with the right of the owners of a parcel of 16 SHORE AND BEACH submerged land further waterward in Boca (Ciega Bay to develop their parcel.'5 Private owners of upland in Florida do not have the unfettered littoral right to bulkhead or fill and dredge the Errata in "Part III: adjoining tide and submerged lands; applicable laws must be followed." The California Approach" Miami Beach, with its erosion problems and numerous resort hotels, has been the scene of legal dis- putes over whether upland owners could build across the Unfortunately, there were numerous typographical beach and exclude the public by erecting bulkheads and errors in this last article in this series, "The Law of the other structures. In 1953 a circuit court enjoined Miami Coast in a Clamshell: Part III: The California Ap- Beach officials from granting permits to upland owners proach," .SVlre and Beach. Vol. 49. No. 2. April 1981. pp. for such structures, except for jetties built perpendicular 20-25. The more important errors should be corrected as to the beach to preserve the beach and trap the sand." follows: Florida's attorney general takes the position that own- 1. Page 22, 2d paragraph under "Legal Effect of ers must obtain the state's consent and approval before Physical Changes in the Location of the Shoreline," 3d wharfing out." line: insert "it" after "as" 2. Page 22, 6th paragraph under "Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location of the Shoreline," lst LEASING AND REGULATION OF COASTAL line: change "retired" to "retried." ZONE LANDS AND WATERS 3. Page 23, 3d paragraph under "Public Access Rights" should read as follows: A. Leasing The California Supreme Court citied this consti- tutional provision and a number of statutes in its con- The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement troversial 1970 Gion-Dietz decision to demonstrate "the Trust Fund may lease state-owned tide and submerged strong public policy in favor of according public access lands for the discovery and production of oil and gas and to the coast."" In Gion-Diet;. the court held that when other minerals." The laHw requires county or city ap- the general public has used a beach or an accessway to provals of leases in some areas.74 In 1944 the Florida the shoreline as if it were public property for at least five years with the owner's acquiescence. the beach or ac- Supreme Court held the state oil leases of sovereign lands cearss ith the found to be impliedls dedicated to the did not violate the public trust doctrine." public. Although the Legislature subsequently curtailed the impact of Gion-DiFtz.62 the doctrine of implied dedication still is an important means of assuring public access rights in California. Various state, regional and local governmental entities 4. Page 23, 1st paragraph under "Leasing," 5th line: exercise regulatory powers over lands and waters within insert reference to note 57 at end of sentence Florida's coastal zone. The following summarizes some 5. Page 24, note 23, 1st line: change "Cic,"to "Civ." Floridae s re g ulast zor. funtollowisng 6. Page 24, note 25, 2d line: delete comma after "606" of these regulatory functions. 7. Page 24, note 32, 1st line: change "211" to "219" Under the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, any "coastal construction"" requires a permit from the 8. Page 25, note 45, 1st line: delete comma after "coastal construction"78 requires a permit from the "152" Department of Natural Resources." Permits for dredg- 9. Page 25, note 51, 2d line: change "152" to "162," ing and filling in sovereign lands are also regulated by 1. Page25, note 5, 4th line: insert "62" before statute; the Department of Environmental Regulation "Cal." and delete comma after "432" oversees this t permit process.er Coastal construction has been a matter of con- siderable concern in Florida because of the heavy development along the state's lengthy coastline, the low rise in elevation landward of coastal waters and such natural phenomena as hurricanes.' To meet this con- emphasizes that "land and water management policies cern, the Beach and Shore Protection Act sets forth should, to the maximum possible extent, be implement- several regulatory procedures, administered through the ed by local government . . ." The Department of En- Department of Natural Resources, restricting new ex- vironmental Regulation administers the act and is cavation and construction along the coast. An interim responsible for developing the state's comprehensive statewide coastal construction setback line, uniformly 50 feet coastal plan." landward of the line of mean high water, was imposed in In February 1981 Florida submitted its proposed 1970.80 Construction waterward of that line requires a Coastal Management Program to the U.S. Office of waiver or variance. In 1971 the Legislature authorized Coastal Zone Management, and formal federal approval coastal counties to establish engineered coastal construction is projected for August 1981. The program, based upon control lines along sandy beaches." 24 existing state laws, proposes that the entire state and As indicated above, Florida, unlike California, did not its territorial waters be included within its coastal zone." create new coastal land-use management machinery to "Issues of special focus" are highlighted in the implement the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of program. "The first issue is hazards management ... Ef- 1972, as amended,"2 within the Sunshine State. Instead, forts presently underway focus on hurricane damage the Florida Coastal Management Act of 1978,"8 mitigation as the first phase of this ... effort."87 JULY 1981 17 other articles in this series. However, the terms robinrrreed lands or Two other such issues are discussed in the program: other article s in this series lowever, the terms abndras lawe ond mvaereqlnly l, dv are often used in Florida statutes and it'se law and (I) resource protection issues (e.g., coral reefs, estuaries, by legal writers to mean both those two classes of lands defined in barrier islands),8 and (2) coastal development issues this series as tidelands (lands lying between the lines of mean high (e.g., ports, disposal of dredged material, marina siting, and mean low water) and submerged lands landls Iing seaward of energy facilities, fisheries, coastal recreation, access).88 the line of mean low water). Tidelands are frequontly referred to in Florida as the flrehore. 14. 1: N.xt u'~rE, I). FtN.VSIN.z, A. I'..Hxitsl, JR. &J. R&'t-;t-Rs, Ibthh, lleaeh .'It-, e' - (;iGuaranteed I'Plae t, .Spr,ead I.ur Tiu el, 29 U. Fla. L. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Rev. 853 n. 3 (1977). .\ state report says that out of about 1,160 miles of saltwater beach. only 272 miles is in federal, state or local The author appreciates the special assistance of Kirby government ownership. not all of which is olpen to the public. The author appreciates the special assistance of Kirby D Iipent ,a 12i IIEIS, sapra, note 1, at 11-235. Green, acting chief cadastral surveyor, Bureau of Survey 15. Trhe Treaty of A\mity, Settlement, and Litnits With Spain, 8 Stat. and Mapping, Department of Natural Resources, State 252, T.S No. 327, was concluded Feb 22, 1N',1 and becameeffec- of Florida; Fred Maley, village manager, Bal Harbour tise Feb. 22, 1821. 16. Stale e, rel. Elli/ v. (;erhn4-. 56 Fla. 603. 610}, 611, 47 S0. 353, 355- Village, Florida; and David R. Worley, administrator, 356 (1908); State v. I6k I/uer Phosphate (32. 32 a 82, 94, 13 So. Office of Coastal Management, Department of Environ- 640, 644 (1893). mental Regulation, State of Florida. 17. 5 Stat. 742. For a brief discussion of the equal-footing doctrine, see the first article in this series, .Shore and Beash, Vol. 48, No. 4, Oc- tober 1980, pp. 15-16. ~~~~~~REFERENCES ~18. The original statutory authority, the Riparian Act of 1856. Fla. Laws 1856, ch. 791, was held by the courts as giving upland own- ers only a qualified title to the lands until they are actually, wharf- ed or filled. Panama Ie & Fi.ish (.. v. ..llanta & St. .4ndreui [Iy Ry., i. According to Haves v. Boemnan, 91 So. 2d 795. 799 (Fla. 1957), the 71 Fla. 419, 71 So. 608 (1916). The Riparian Act was modified in state's "general coastline" is 1,197 statute miles long and "our 1921 by the Butler Act, Fla. Laws 1921, ch. 8537. lhe Butler Act detailed tidal shoreline, including bays, sounds and other bodies was also construed to vest no absolute title to tidelands until they measured to the head of tidewater," is 8,426 miles long. A recent "are filled or permanently improved.".Sein v. Brmien roperlies, 104 state report, however, says Florida's "tidal shoreline (including So. 2d 495, 499 (Fa. 1958). In 1957 the Butler Act was repealed by islands with land area greater than 40 acres) is approximately the Bulkhead Act, Fla. Laws 1957, ch 5"-362. Under the 11,000 miles in length." Only Alaska has a longer coastline. Bulkhead Act, as codified in Chapter 253 of the Florida Statutes, Almost no point in Florida is more than 70 miles from the coast, no one could acquire title to tidelands except by purchase from the and more than 75 percent of its population lives in coastal counties. state. Many of the original provisions of the Bulkhead Act have Draft Entiromnental Impact Statement of the Proposed Coastal Management since been repealed. Program for Tie State ofFlonda [hereinafter cited as DEISI, xxii, 111, 19. The board consists of seven trustees, including the governor and 11-10, IV-1 (February 1981). the Cabinet. Fla. Stat.�� 253.0)01, 253.02. 25303, 253.12 (1980 2. Id. at 11-I. Supp.). The Division of State Lands performs "staff duties and 3. Fla. Const., art. X, � II functions related to acquisition, administration, and disposition" 4. Fla. Stat. � 380.20 et seq. (1980 Supp.). of such lands. Fla. Stat. � 253.002 (1980 Supp.). 5. DEIS, supra, note 1, at 11-12-15. The Florida Legislature instructed 20. Fla. Const., art. X, � II. A number of restrictions are placed on "the Department of Environmental Regulation to compile a such sales. See, e.g., Fla. Star. �� 253.02. 253.12 (2) (a). (b) (1980 [coastal management) program based on existing statutes and ex- Supp.). It is required, for example, that an applicant to purchase isting rules. " Fla. Stat. � 380.21(2) (980 Supp.). Florida's ap- sovereign lands must also have (1) an application for the establish- proach thus is quite different from the new body of law reflected in ment ofa bulkhead line if nosuch lineexists, (2) anapplication for the former California Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Cal. Pub. a lfill permit and (3) a permit or application for a permit to dredge Resources Code � 271000 et req.), adopted when the voters passed fill material from beneath the navigable waters in the event he in- Proposition 20 in 1972, and in the current California Coastal Act of tends to obtain such material. 1976 (Cal. Pub. Resource Code � 30000 e/ seq.). Instead of a 21. 67 Stat. 29; codified at 43 U.S.C. � 1301 el eq. California-style program involving new statewide and regional 22. The Submerged Lands Act's confirmation of Florida's submerged agencies to implement coastal zone planning and permitting, the lands rights in the Gulf of Mexico depends on the location of the Florida program contemplates voluntary local governmental par- state's congressionally approved maritime boundary. United States ticipation. Fla. Stat. � 380.24 (1980 Supp.). However, Florida has v. Florda, 363 U.S. 121, 129 (1960); Iited Slate5 v. l.Loisiana, 363 recognized the need for coordinated coastal resource management Us. 1, 24-36 (1960). since at least 1970. DEIS, supra, note I, at 11-1-2. The state's 23. Fla. Const., art. X, � I. The 1970 amendment to this provision did proposed program concedes "It ]here often is no clear-cut delinea- not change the boundary. tion of functions among the various federal, state, 35 county and 24. Fla. Stat. � 177.25 el rq. (1980 Supp.). more than 1610 municipal, and regional government agencies in- 25. Fla. Stat. � 177.26 (1980 Supp.). volved with management of state coastal resources," and states 26. Fla. Stat. � 177.27 (16) (1980 Supp.). that the integration of these authorizations "is perhaps the greatest 27. Fla. Sat. 177.27 (15)(1 Supp.). This denition is substan- challenge facing the state program." DEIS, supra, note 1, at 11-7. tially in accord with the federal rule enunc iated in is sustn v. tially in accord with the federal rule enunciated in B,,rax, led. v. 6. Fla. Stat. � 161.052 (1980 Supp.). (.Cta fl.n , Angeles, 296 U.S. 10 (1935). See Sh,,re andl each, Vol. 48, 7. Fla. Stat. � 161.053 (1980 Supp.). No. 4, October 1980, pp. 17-18, and Vol. 49. No. 2, April 1981, p. 8. Fla. Stat. � 161.151 (3); Fla. Stat. �� 161.161, 161.181, 161.191 21. For decisions applying the Coastal Mapping A\ct, see St. 7,freph (1980 Supp.). L.and and l)e'elopment (.Co. v. I'l,,rila State Board ilf Tri tee. 365 So. 2d 9. Fla. Stat. � 177.25 et seq. (1980 Supp.). 1084, 1087-1089 (Fla. 1st D)ist. Ct. App. 1979); Anrti, v. (;Grkap. 10. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. � 253.12 (1980 Supp.). Inc., 349 So. 2d 788, 790 n. 8 (Fla. 2d D)ist. Ct. .\pp. 19')77). II. This problem is recognized in the proposed Florida Coastal 28. Fla. Stat. � 177.28 (1980 Supp.). This statute excepts from the Management Program: "Intensive commercial and residential general rule any "privately owned submerged lands validly development in beach areas has restricted public use of the alienated by the state . . . or its legal predecessors," ie., Spain and beaches. Property owners are not required to provide access to the the United States. publicly-owned wet sand beach." DEIS, supra, note 1, at 11-6. See 29. Fla. Stat. � 177.27 (1) (1980 Supp.) also id. at 11-5, 11-13, 11-234-241, 11-358-362. 30. Fla. Stat. � 177.34 (1980 Supp.). 12. Fla. Stat. � 380.1')(2) (b) (1980 Supp.). For a discussion of the 31. For a brief discussion of the English common-law rule, see .Shore proposed Florida Coastal Management Program's definition of the and leach, Vol. 48, No. 4, October 198(1, p. I'. coastal zone, see "Leasing and Regulation of the Coastal Zone 32. .liller v. Bav-to-(ulf, Inc., 141 Fla. 452. 45-460(, 193 So. 425, 428 Lands and Waters," infra. (1940) (emphasis added). 13. This classification is used for convenience and consistency with 33. See Sihore and Ileah, Vol. 49, No. 2. April 1981, pp. 21-22. i18 SHORE AND BEACH t.1 h,.. (,A,,,i I, ...,,. 3491 So 2d -S. '79(1 (:1 RiI-K'I la'Al1 .\( (ess to I lorido's Bea( Iht..... ,,, 35 Ruckel/l 7rarnmrdl. 77 Fla 544, 82 St, 221 (1'119); Municipal L- / lfa 8. Vol 47, N/ 1. jauar 19. gquidatn,, l( %. 7 rwmh. I 53 So2d 728 (Fla 2d Ilist. Cr Arpp 1)63() 67. 7hlroen v. (;lll, b & .4 RI . 75 Fla 28. 78 SSo 491 (1918) For a A1~ .IThe Coastlal Mappinu Act states that no provision in that reaut statuw defining riparian rights generallyu see Fla Stat � 107.228 "shall be deemed to modil, tlhe common law of this state wili (1981 Supp.). respelt to tIhe lega] efflects of accretion, reliclion, erosion or avlI- 68 Fla Slat. � 253111 (7) (1981 Supp ). However, if there is no sior, " I lu. Stait (18( 177.28 ( Sul'p1). private upland owner along the coastal strete h in question, or if he ?36 it ," / ,,% -waives his priority righ, and ifthe Board of1rustees of the Internal it, w,~~~~,, II,, (,,.~ /~, ~f,, (, 97 %( 2d 7rig. 7t(0 (Fin Ist t. :I. Ap 1 , v. t 4. l~.' ( So 2(1 7~8. ) (I Li 9Improvement Trusl Fund decides to sell the sovereign land, the hoard of commissioners of the count) in which thle land is located 3 ,, In,. N. Il. 122 So 2d 218. 221 (Fla. 2d Ii. C. must be given the first opportunirty to acquire tihe land and devote it ~~~AppfIJI.,~~~~ 196~0).~ ~to public purposes hefore any other private offers can be considered 38 Fla; Stat. � 161.)11 I t.eq lhit act is a component of the proposed by the state. Fla. Stat. � 253.111 (1)-(6) (198(10 Supp ) See also Fla Florida Coastal Management p'rogram Stat. � 253.12 (4) (1980 Supp ), limiting sale of "lands ... between 39. 'lhe erosion control line is "the lint determined in accordance with the ... mean high waterline and any bulkhead line ... only to the thle provisions of �� 161.141-161.211 Irelatine to beach nourislh- upland riparian owner and to no other person, firm, or corlpora- menr and restoration and erosion control projects] which re- tion; . . ." In addition, under Fla. Stat. � 253.14 the private upland presents the landward extent ol the claims of the state in its owner may bring suit "against the sale provided for in � 253.12 on cal)acitN as sovereign title holdel of the submerged bottoms and the ground that he would be thereby deprived of his riparian rights shores of the Atlanic c ()can. the: Gull of Mexico. and the bays, granted to him by law." See note 18, upra, regarding upland ow- lagoons and other tidal reaches thereof on the date ofthe recording ners' rights under earlier statutes of the survey as authorized in � 161.181." Fla. Stat. � 161.151 (3). 69. Ilae, v. Bo,,man, supra. 91 So. 2d 795. 801. See also FIa Stat. � 161.141 (198(0 Supp.). 70. A full discussion ofthe relevant statutory requirements, which have 40. Fla Stat. � 161.191(1), (2) (1980 Supp.). changed from time to time, is beyond the scope of this article. 41. I)EIS. srafa. note 1, at 11-363. Basically, any dredging or filling in navigable waters now requires 42. Fla. Stat. � 161.141-161.211 (1980( Supp.). apermit issuedunderChapters253and403of the Florida Statutes, 43. Fla. Stat. � 161.141 (1980 Suplp.). subject to certain exemptions. See generally Fla Stat. � 253.124 44 Fla. Stat � 161(151. (1980 Supp.) regarding applications for fill permits at the present 45. Boardf7e/rstee./ ,th lhntrrnal hnlpro'ement Truttl udv. Aadetra leach time. In 1975, when the former bulkhead statute (Fla. Stat. � .V (manre. In,.. 272 So 2d 209. 214 (IFla. 2d D)ist. ;t. App. 253.122) was repealed, the Legislature provided that "laill 1973). bulkhead lines heretofore established pursuant to Ithat former 46. See R. BoHi, & I. Coop'.:a. Real IPropert. 28 U. Miami L. Rev. 1, statute] are hereby established at the line ofmean highwateroror- 26 (19'3). In California, such artificially accreted lands belong to dinary high water." Fla. Stat. � 253.1221 (1980 Supp.). Filling the state or its legislative grantee. and not the private upland own- waterward of such line was prohibited except upon compliance er. Sec Sisv, and lBreh. Vol. 49, No. 2, April 1981. 11p.22. vith Chapter 253 of Florida Statutes. Id. See note 18, supra. for cita- 47. H.NI. vo OEs:s',. "A Beach Restoration Project Study, Bal Har- tions to the Riparian Act of 1856 and the Butler Act of 1921, which bour Village, Florida." Shore and Beach, Vol. 41, No. 2, October previously regulated rights to bulkhead and fill. See note 20, supra, 1973, pp. 3-4. For further technical data on this project, see COL. for citations to current statutes relating to requirements imposed J.W.R. ADAMs, "Florida's Beach Program at the Crossroads," on private upland owners applying to buy adjoining sovereign Shore and Beach, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 1981, pp. 10, 11-13. lands, including the need to apply for the establishment of a 48. Coastal Zone 80, the Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean bulkhead line if none exists and to apply for a fill permit. Management, held at Hollywood, Florida. in November 1980, in- 71. State ex eel. Marsh v. Simberg (so. 2), 4 Fla. Supp. 85, 97 (Cir. Ct., eluded a field trip of the Bal Harbour restored beach area. The tour Dade Co. 1953). See also State ex eel. Tailor v. Strmberg, 2 Fla. Supp. was co-sponsored by the American Shore and Beach Preservation 178 (Cir. Ct., Dade Co. 1952). Association and the Dade County Environmental Resources 72. Op. Fla. Alltty. Gen. 059-241 (1959). Management Department. 73. Fla. Stat. �� 253.45, 253.47, 253.51. 49. Fla. Const., art. X, � 11 (emphasis added). 74. Fla. Stat. � 253.61. 50. 146 U.S. 387 (1892). 75. Watson v. Holland. 155 Fla. 342, 20 So. 2d 388 (1944). 51. Statc v. BlacA Rtuer Phosphlate (.., supra. 32 Fla. 82. 106. 13 So. 640, 76. This term is defined as "any work or activity which is likely to have 648. a material physical effect on existing coastal conditions or natural 52. 14'hile v. Hughes. 139 Fla. 54. 190 So. 446 (1939). shore and inlet processes." Fla. Stat. � 161.021 (4) (1980 Supp.). 53. 139 Fla. at 58-59, 190 So. at 448-449. In this case the court held 77. Fla. Stat. � 161.041 (1980 Supp.). that the public's right to use a beach for bathing and recreational 78. See generally Fla. Stat. � 253.123 et seq. and the Florida Air and purposes is superior to that ofmotorists driving vehicleson it under W'ater Pollution Control Act, Fla. Stat. � 403011 et. seq. For a brief a statute declaring the beach to be a public highway. discussion of certain statutory requirements, see note 70, supra. 54. Fla. Stat. � 253.122 (repealed by Fla. Laws 1975, ch. 75-22, � 26). 79. DEIS, supra, note 1, at 11-79, 11-241 et seq. 55. See, e.g., Duval Engineering and Contracting Co. v. Sales, 77 So. 2d 431 80. in general, this interim setback line, established on a statewide (Fla. 1954); Browaed v. Mfabry, 58 Fla. 398, 50 So. 826 (1909); State basis, prohibits new construction within a strip 50 feet landward of ex eel. Ellis v. Gerbing, supro, 56 Fla. 603, 47 So. 353. See statutes "the line of mean high water at any riparian coastal location cited in note 18, supra. fronting the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic coast shoreline of the state,. 56. Cal. Const., art. X, � 4 (formerly art. XV, � 2). .." Fla. Stat. � 161.052(1) (1980 Supp.). "[W]hereanerosion con- 57. Ore. Rev. Stat. � 390.610 et seq. trol line has been established . . . that line, or the presently ex- 58 Tex. Nat. Resources Code � 61,011 et seq. isting mean high-water line, whichever is more landward. shall be 59. Fla. Slat. � 375.031 (6) (198(1 Supp.). considered to be the mean high-water line for the purposes of this 6(1. Fla. Stat. � 375.031 (10) (1980 Supp.). section." Id. The coastal construction setback line does not apply 61. Fla. Slat. � 161.091 (1) (a), (b) (1980 Supp.). to areas having "vegetation-type nonsandy shores." Fla. Slat. � 62. C'y of Do)aytlona Reach v. 7Tona-Rama, Inc., 294 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1974). 161.052 (5). (1980 Supp.). This interim setback line remains in 63. Under this English common-law concept, citizens of localities by force pending the establishment of the coastal counties' cons)rue- immemorial custom had the right to use private land, but it "must tion control lines discussed in note 81, infra. Fla. Star. � 161.053 (9) have continued from time immemorial, without interruption, and (1980 Supp.). as a right; it must be certain as to the place, and as to the persons; 81. These construction control lines are to be established by the and it must be certain and reasonable as to the subject matter or Department of Natural Resources on a county-by-count)y basis rights created." 3 H. TIFFANY, Law of Real Ioperrv � 935, p. 623 (3d "along the sand beaches... fronting on the Atlantic Ocean and the ed. 1939). Gulf of Mexico." Fla. Stat. � 161.053 (1) (1980 Supp.). These 64. 294 So. 2d at 78. It may be argued, however, that this language was engineered "lines shall be established so as to define that portion of unnecessary to the decision (.e., dictum). the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based 65. Id. on a 100-year storm surge or other predictable weather conditions, 66. I)EIS, supra, note 1, at 11-239. For an interesting article examining and so as to define the area within which special structural design various issues concerning public access to the state's coast, see L. consideration is required to insure protection of the beach-dune JULY 1981 19 system, any proposed structure, and adjacent properties, rather Fla. Stat. � 161.O53 (4), (7). (10) (1980 Supp.). As of June 1980 than to define a seaward limit for upland structures." Id. The law coastal construction "control lines had been established and recor- provides that such "lines shall be established. . . only after it has (led for 22 of the 24 counties involved " DEIS, oipra, note I, at II- been determined from a comprehensive engineering study and 366. The lines generally are from 100 to lI ) feet landward of the topographic survey that . . [their] establishment . . is necessary mean high-water line. Ibid. I)ade County (Miami, Miami Beach) for the protection of upland properties and the control of beach ero- and Broward County (Fort Lauderdale), the two counties swithout sion," and only after public hearings are held. Fla. Stat. � 161 .053 such lines, are expected to have approval soon. Ili. at 11-367. For (2) (198) Supp.) The department's consideration must include discussions of the state law and a proposed model local ordinance, "ground elevations in relation to historical storm and hurricane see W. BENTON, (.;lztal (isInTlrtion SethbrA l.nes, 50 Fla BarJ. 627 tides, predicted maximum wave uprush, beach and offshore (1976); F. M.lAt.,NEt & A. ()'DoNNEI.LJR., )Dra in ng the line ,lt the ground contours, the vegetation line, erosion trends, the dune or (,eanfronl. The Role of (;atal (',ntrcrtln .Selbtia l.nes I Reulhtn bluff line, if any exist, and existing upland development,...." I. l)eielImienerl of the C(altal lsne, 30 U. Fla. L. Rev. 383 (1978). The statute provides that coastal counties orcoastal municipalities 82. 16 U.S.C. � 1451 el seq. "may establish construction zoning and building codes in lieu of 83. Fla. Stat. � 380.20 et seeq. (1980 Supp.). the provisions of this section,. . . [upon approval] by the depart- 84. Fla. Stat. � 380.21 (1) (c) (1980 Supp.). ment as being adequate to protect the shoreline from erosion and 85. Fla. Stat. � 380.19 (3), (4). safeguard adjacent structures." Fla. Stat. � 161.053 (3) (1980 86. However, certain areas are excepted, including lands owned by the Slipp.) Various exemptions to the law are permitted for shore Seminole Indian Tribe, and for purposes of � 307 of the federal protection works, for proposed structures in areas where "a num- Coastal Zone Management Act, Florida's coastal zone is limited to ber of existing structures have established a reasonably continuous the coastal counties. DEIS, ',ipra, note 1, at 11-10. and uniform construction line closer to the line of mean high water 87. DEIS, unpra, note I, at xxi, 11-241-252. than the [coastal construction line or locally established zoning and 88. DEIS, milpra, note 1, at 11-170-194. building codesl ....."and for existing or partially built structures. 89. DEIS, sipra. note 1, at 11-194-241. See also id. at 111-358-362. 20 SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part I": The Texas Approach B l ILrEK I I. F. 1(;K\HmR (U/], v {,/ thr, .-ItfJrnrTfv (;raerl., Stal'' liCal (f.frnia San l.rapcI ir, (.'Callurnil A s Hni- NI v s'rlvr. to have bheen an independent re- early Spanish or Mexican grant, or (2) a convey;ance public,' Texas occupies a unique niche in the from the Republic of' Texas or the state.'s Utnlike some pantheon of Amrnerican states. And as the leading other jurisdlictions, the Federal (;overnment never had mineral-producing state,2 with extensive offshore pro- title to any Texas ullands. duction of oil and gas, Texas is vitally important in to- [he source of ullnd title is important because it de- day's energy-hungry nation. termines the seaward limit of the parcel. As will be cx- rexans remain an independent breed. Witness their plained later,"5 there are two distinct tidal boundary recent rejection of the Federal (;overnment's carrot: rules in Texas, one for pre-1840 grants of littoral lands. funding under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and a second for later upland patents. Preexisting Span- (CZMA).3 'The -tate's CZNI, grant terminated April 30. ish or Mexican private titles were protected und(er the 1981, when Texas elected not to seek federal approval of 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,'" ending the Mlexican its proposed T'exas Coastal Program.4 War. But, unlike some other states, such as California, Texas is eager to develop the petroleum resources off its coast.5 That coast already boasts one of the greatest B. Tidelands concentrations of energy-related facilities in the nation: 39 petroleum refineries, 54 petrochemical installations, 73 Except for some tidelands granted to local entities, gas-producing plants, and a large network of oil and gas navigation districts and private parties,"7 the state owns pipelines.8 And it is Texas' clear policy to encourage ad- the lands lying between (I) either the line of mean high ditional energy facilities in its coastal zone7 in order to water or the line of mean higher high water'8 and (2) the serve oil and gas production from both the state-owned line of mean low water. tide and submerged lands and the federally managed In addition, a 1977 Texas law provides that "Itlhe Outer Continental Shelf.8 water of the ordinary flow, underflow, and tides of every Nevertheless, Texas also has been a forerunner in en- bay or arm of the Gulf of ,lexico, ... is the property of couraging and protecting public access to its seashore. In the state."'9 1959, years before some other states even recognized that The School Land Board,z� with the assistance of the beach access was a problem, the Lone Star State's Legis- staff of the General Land Office,2l is charged with man- lature passed the Texas ()pen Beaches Act,9 emphasizing aging state-owned tidelands under the Texas Coastal the state's public policy of encouraging recreational use Public Lands Management Act of 1973.22 of its beaches and tidal waters. C. Submerged Lands TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE In 1836 the First Congress of the Republic of Texas fixed the seaward boundary of the new nation at 3 Texas' coastal lands may be divided conveniently into marine leagues from the Gulf of Mlexico's shore.23 uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.'0 Significantly, even though the Republic later adopted The 1980 State Hearing Draft of the proposed compre- the common law, it expressly retained the .Mexican, or hensive Texas Coastal Program defined the state's coast- civil-law, system with respect to the sovereign's reserva- al zone as including the first tier of counties along the tion of minerals under all its lands.24 coast as well as tide and submerged lands seaward to the When Texas joined the Union in 1845, the U.S. Con- 3-statute-mile limit of the U.S. territorial sea." gress passed, and the president approved, a joint resolu- A. Uplands 'Thl, ais t thJ l In m atrrtn I flt lol prtntm, ae .p. t t' r..on of, hn , rh , iemprarr t ,l a! the, wlz, tot Most of the state's coastal uplands are privately T, . ....." d l.a "wfin owned,'2 but some of these littoral lands are subject to SXpi~ ltmliltm prt-l hd, n. -dplh 4mahulall-, man fl0 ,aeipeIrat00.1,. oruoqnatlrtomtlit ISt, lrtas~l tvprnestd In fhsl and rhe ,,thtrr ytulsltn th efr tl so neal nln warnl� r'nti et r l,~a, othe ((Its f11 t h e .tI. public rights under Texas law.'" tl.me d G-tra .hm aim ,Ih* t;hnltma. ,,r Jan* ,itht .areq noa .f a, ititt Oa Sh IOra h, at! I./ F Due to the state's unique history, the original source of , ;,.n T a ut, al. Nse,"h t,), ,p.nt-patttonlati -Phenhtl/..tter nthdn ,. .. .lphd tn I',d N...~o f, Dotbet I'. pp 1121 Vol t.Vo. tnnuarv I'~, pp IN JO. 9,d .19.;, ..Aphi title to any given parcel of uplands may be either (I) an IN, pp .2s5 and 1.ot N..~ R. 7ppy rI', pp l.. 24 SHORE AND BEACH tion25 accepting the fledgling state's new Constitution, prenm Court's landmark 1935 decision in Ilr,7x, lld. v. which provided that (.'ity f 1t, .4ngeler,43 equating the line of mean high "Ithel rights of pr(nperty.. which have been acquired water [tide] with the common-law term "ordinary high- under the 1priorl Constitution and laws of the Repub)lic water mark." shall not be divested ... bu . . . shall remain precisely 'I'o the credit of the 'ITexas Supreme Court, both the in lthe( sitoltioln which tley were teliore the adopltionl of l.ttal and Rluddcl decisions clarify a previously murky this (:onstitutiol,,i"2 'thij ( onsl itut oll ''26 area of the state's coastal lass by applying modern In its post-W\orld War 11 legal battle with the United scientific and technical data to set forth workable, pre- States over submerged lands, Texas argued, unsuccess- cise definitions of both the Spanish/M\lexican and corn- fully. that C:ongress' action had the effect of ratifying mon-law tidal boundary rules. lexas' decision, refected in its 1845 Constitution, to 1. The Snni/lAxie-a Iu/r. Before Lt/er, "le]xactly continue reserving minerals under all its lands, includ- Xwhat the appropriate civil law rule should be became a ing submerged lands in the (;ulf.7 Teing subm18r etyd ods in thuadal (;u1peHialo.27 betsubject for much discussion by Texas courts."" For ex- T he 1848 '1Treaty of (;uadaluype Hidalrgo betseen th�e ample. an 1859 state Supreme Court case said that under Uinited States and Mexico expressly recognized 1 exas the civil law, "the shore lextendsl to the line of highest 3-league (Gulfwvard boundary.28 The limit was further tide in winter."' confirmed by the Gadsen 1Treaty, signed in 1853.29 In 1944, in .S'ar v. Bna," the Texas Supreme Court Price D)aniel. then Texas' attorney general, wrote in "for the first time" faced "the question of the seaward 1949: boundary of a Mexican or Spanish grant."'" The court "Texas' 3-league boundary in the Gulf and its owner- held the line of mon high tid was the boundary reject- ship of the lands and minerals within such boundaries shlil of the lands and minerals v ithin such boundaries ing the state's contention that the shoreline should be have never been challenged until the recent claim of the ing the state's contention that the shoreline shoul be Federal Government against all the coastal states.""0 based on the highest tide in winter. However, Batlh is "lim- ited strictly to the particular case and therefore to Padre Daniel was referring to a series of lawsuits known as the Island where the grant was located."" .Suhniergred l.and (.asfe.o,3' one of which involved Texas.2 I In 195;0 the U.S'. Supreme Courtnsaidthe ou ai h FedTeral Later, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, apply- In 1950 the U.S. Supreme Court said tie Federal ing Texas law, considered the seaward extent of Span- G;overnment has paramount power over these sub- ish and xican grants in luml ( I. ..n merged lands, including dominion over such natural re- ish a nd exican grants in O il & v sources as oil. However, Congress then passed the Sub- boundary of a large mud flat in Laguna Madre by af- merged Lands Act of 1953,.3 nullifying the court's ruling Texas' title to the 3-league-wide strip in firming the trial court's holding that the mud flat had and confirming exas' title to the 3-league-vsle strip In accreted to a state-owned island rather than to the the Gulf of Mexico. In 1960 the U.S. Supreme Court ex- mainland grants leased by Humble. pressly "recognized that Texas has jurisdiction over submerged In Lutteu, which involved an 1829 upland grant adjoin- land to a distance of three marine leagues, or approxi- ing Laguna Madre by the Mexican State of Tamauli- matelv 1().35 statute miles ....34 pas, the Texas Supreme Court elected to apply the Spanish and Mexican seashore boundary law set forth in La Siete Partidas,5� instead of that defined in the early DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES Roman scholar Justinian's Institutes.6' The court, utiliz- ing modern scientific knowledge about tidal epochs, A. Upland/Tideland Boundary held in a 1958 decision that "the applicable rule of the Mexican (Spanish) law is that of the average of highest Texas has two distinct legal boundaries between pri- daily water computed over or a corrected to the regular vately owned uplands and sovereign lands beneath tidal tidal cycle of 18.6 years. "62 However, the court then am- waters: (1) the line oi nmean higher high water ttidel when biguously said: "This means in substance mean high the littoral parcel's title stems from a Spanish or Mexi- water." 3 can grant or a conveyance by the Republic of Texas be- Later, the court conceded that this part of its original fore January 20, 1840,.6 and (2) the line of mean hi h water opinion had "been criticized, and no doubt justly so, for [tidel if the source of title to the uplands was a some confusion as to whether the landward line of the post-1840 grant by the Republic or the State of Texas.80 shore as regards abutting Spanish or Mexican grants is Consequently, in general." the base instrument in a that of mean high tide or mean higher high tide. since chain of title to littoral lands determines whether the along the Texas coast there are generally two daily high upland/tideland boundary is ascertained under the tides and two daily low tides."6 Spanish/Mexican version of the civil-law rule,8 or under The court, recognizing the use of a mean-higher-high- the common-law test."9 water datum instead of a mean-high-water datum "con- Unlike Florida, where upland/tideland boundary ceivably could, in a given case, be substantial from the questions were recently resolved by new constitutional standpoint of acreage involved," clarified its earlier de- and statutory provisions,4 Texas' courts settled these cision: increasingly important issues. "... It was our intention to hold, and we do hold, that In the 1958 case of Lutles v. State"4 the state's Supreme the line under the Spanish (Mexican) law is that of mean Court held that pre-1840 Spanish, Mexican and Repub- higher high fidr, as distinguished from the nmean high tide of lie littoral grants extend onlyv to the line of mean higher the Anglo-American law."TM high water Itidel instead of to the more seaward line of In general, there is actually only a small difference mean high water Itide]. Two years earlier, in Rudder v. between the datums of mean high water and mean l'onde,,42 the Texas court had embraced the U.S. Su- higher high water along much of the Texas coast, a OCTOBER 1981 25 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~J -A I n Fig. 1. Aerial view of Galveston Seawall and groin field, looking northeast. The seawall was constructed by the Corps of Engineers of various time intervals between 1902 and 1963. TEXAS' PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE is flexible enough for the oasial yolie If prolude "rec- reatijonal areas .. tlInd it es hayv and Gulf ''lt(- pnheli( trUst d(heitritie-a common-law. principle waters" and to s(,rsi ;I, "111)ileottati N\ildhlill habitats'' 'A i ih anitc(cdcnits inl tile Roman civll iaw'9-is recog- while also mcclinc "i t( nrt-d, eel 11as kcat on and in- llij/U~ d ilA plie~hd ite TVIS, alIheIMLIh few. appellate dusiry. in luditic eereerncri~lil htjs ' (ases spee ifie Ahl dle iis,, it inl anN detail. Although Ihc pi eepaesd Tcx;is, ( eit iIr()Lramr has \\ithi I exas duel hrtg e ethtecvl law. (Span- been turned down. the stc Lce-lrt Hei has~ enacted i,,h11-\exlim an ad pre-1I8440 Repoefili( and the common v-arious statutecs lmased on thc jetible iit et dwietrine-` lesN tim,;t-184iit. it is nim ,lir-prising that an 1859 Texas supr-eticulf. t Gwr dci"Wicli ;n eha~ d the pubick trust con- PUBLIC( A(,CISS RIGHTS (clii hristiciisiii e'tAi 1 oastal lantd and the rest the sii eus 1jutile dfeeiiaiij. the ( ourt stated: Texas legislators and (Alueorts has c ii.gojrousv protected lii ti jmf-If iccit, i lit4lf tiiie Nwsetv andith the public's right s oh all If to tie state(s sandhy beaches it (ith 1w e~il Iest ijjp~ropriated. by de- and to tidal waterrs ol the( (;tl (iel oh cixim , bays and II feiil is~u4 h'~not e'atitin awayex- estuaries. litle I wili 1 it W 115 a '1 Ini 1959 the Li.egislmktiii ciial ted the( T exas Open Lii uses reltee ;ied ili pustte itidi policy that Beaches AtY fiharo teti/eeld us t fee heetieleneenal Legis- Lin,eeef- heiie,;th tidal 4str aiel helf lin trust for the use lati%,e statementl eel the eiW~III o eel th poilei( on the Illid h(.n1tet el aY 11ll t(d pleelie beaches oif Texais"." lkie (Title lzrd,"l. ilutrmis of pure Ife let I o(jeosecd I 'ii i t-)v tedt ITexas (:oastal Program substantielw . a ies~ hainc e rate-aw -ie rig.hts in the Nomileh horset ic-( egi,'eld th oieetiilt if a wide spec'- T)ul)li( wl (F id tio pies ieee- 111 r~ fal\l-t diletth- comnmon aait (iii elm k i jmif )ifis- eell( lmiiiehs arid %-.-aters within the Ila V."18 o (sY,l /ete li the PI, ItIe1) I[ear IIIIII N1 -IIf-i IIIIIg Il)r-aftI of th11e p)ro- SeenlIc lega oi I I I I II It 'eIcIIciIIe thIs Ia 1;IctI wa s peesed plan1 it ss.i, Iainejie mii lee ite leeilehte trust doctrine pas,;cd Tlle ioisf- theit sI~ Nt1 \exea tidal OCTOBER 1981 27 outIn(ln.iry tiecision"7 had i)reci'(itltetd the crIt ion of 'the ( )pII Beat hes A\t d(ots nt aplly to (I) bea ches fe'n(es, barrio ade(s, *.)wdv'en pilings and at her blariers not bordering oni the tpen waI'ler'- (of the (;ulf, (2 remnlote acr( ss many o(f the state's I lea lhes." In the ac t, the Leg- beac'hes (on islantds or peninlsulas nlot ; (ccessible by) pub- islatulre rati'ied the e al)pli ation to Ibedch ,a('ccss displites lie ro;ad or ferry, and (3) hea;l(hs over \v hlioh ito pre- ()f varioulS legal theories Ilthat had (lv)I'(ed nitlder the scriptive or pir('sulnl)tip e right hats i)een cstal)li'shed.'0 (common lav: p)rescriltionl, diedicaltion and (ustoin.8 I loweer, one legal comnmentator (aiimrs that the act Xlore significantly, the act eml)owvers the I'exas at- "hhas created nutnero(us p)roblems lor the littoral l.id- tornev general and other public attorneys to file law- owners and landl developers" ol' ul)lands subject to the suits protecting these plulblic rights and seeking the re- law.1o' Tlitle policies for these ulpland owners are alleged moval of obstruct ions or barriers.90 to specifi'cally exclutle insurance against ,s hatever rights The act Iclearly declares the pul)lic policy of T'Iexas to the public' may have tn(ler the atct.l�7 be T'Ihe Coastal Public ILantds Management Act of 19')73 . . . that the public . . . shall have the free and un- contains some language similar to that in the ()pen restri(ted r!4,/t ,/ ,,'tc antid i,revs' too, n,] /a,, tIh,' 1,'t,- Beaches Act with respect to putblic rights.'08 To date, ,anrtel /'ni lurh hrlr ,rrrOn the walrr Ot hre of hr, (;i/l/ ,I the appellate courts have not determined the Coastal .tleoi, ,o. or If the pubtlic has acrquired a right (of use or l''Public Landcs Nla;nagement Act's impact on littoral easement to or over an area by prescription. dedication, owners' rights. or has retained it right by virtue of continuous right in Private upland owners appear to have certain rights the public, the public shall have the free and t nre-tidal Imsn the hri i,Iftnerin [ ,t title to, the line nfreetation horrlering waters,109 but the question of the state's power to regu- fon the (;,l', of lY,',,it tide late these structures remains clouded."1� Indeed, al- Another provision" states that in lawsuits under this though "[pirivate use of coastal land has increased con- act there are prima facie legal presumptions that, "in the siderably ..." uncertainty surrounds such questions as area [landward] from mean low tide to the line of vege- "the extent to which a landowner may use and develop tation,""9 the private littoral owner's "title . . . does not the public beach for his private purposes landl . . . the include the right to prevent the public from using the littoral rights of an owner of coastal property to use the area for ingress and egress to the sea," and, "subject to State-owned land under tidal waters adjacent to his proof of easement," there is "a prescriptive right or property.""' [public access] easement...." As of this writing, no re- ported Texas Supreme Court case has squarely decided whether this provision is constitutional, but an inter- LEASING AND REGULATION OF mediate appellate court has ruled the act is constitu- COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS tional.' not be construed as affecting in any way the title of the A. Leasing owners of land adjacent to any state-owned beach96 bor- dering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico ...." Texas law emposwers the School Land Board to lease The act does not apply to such protective structures as "the portion of the Gulf of .Mexico within the jurisdic- groins, seawalls and jetties erected or maintained by tion of the state" and "islands, saltwater lakes, bays. in- federal or state agencies." lets, marshes, and reefs owned by the state within tide- Texas appellate courts' recent decisions on beach ac- water limits" for oil and gas production.m2 The board cess have favored the public over private littoral owners. may also lease these lands for the production of coal, In the 1964 case of Seneawy Co. v. .4tiorne (;eneral,98 the lignite, sulphur, salt and potash."3 Houston Court of Civil Appeals held that there was suf- ficient evidence of nonpermissive public use of the West B. Regulatory Functions Beach of Galveston Island over a 200-year period to es- tablish an implied dedication to the public by Seaway's Numerous statutes embody a wide variety of regula- predecessors in interest."9 tory schemes controlling and limiting the use of lands In 1973 the same court approved a temporary injunc- and waters within Texas' coastal zone. More than a tion against a campground franchise holder that had dozen independent state agencies manage coastal re- built a fence obstructing public access to a beach on sources."' Two of the management and regulatory func- San Luis Island.'�� One commentator believes this de- tions of these agencies are particularly noteworthy. cision "may precurse a rather liberal judicial construc- The Coastal Public Lands Management Act of 1973"6 tion of just which waters constitute the Gulf of Mexico contains much of the law relating to the state's coastal for purposes of" applying the Open Beaches Act.�l' public land management. The act articulates public policy goals (e.g., preservation of natural resources, pre- vention of unauthorized use of coastal public lands)."8 PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS Under the act, however, the School Land Board, with the assistance of the General Land Office's staff, "may In general, Texas' private upland owners have rights issue permits authorizing limited continued use of pre- of access to adjacent lands underlying the GCulf of Mex- viously unauthorized structures on coastal public land" ico and other tidal waters,'"' subject to the public rights under certain circumstances." protected under the Open Beaches Act'03 and the pro- Dune preservation along much of the Texas coast is visions of the Coastal Public Lands Management Act of the objective of one key regulatory package. Finding 1973.'04 that sand dunes "provide a protective barrier for adja- 28 SHORE AND BEACH cent land and inland water and land against the action ptsits Itherein, beneath navigable waters seaward to 3 marine of sand, wind, and water-,iiS the Legislature has aL]- leagues (9 geographical miles) in the G(;ulf of Mexico; under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands (OCS) Act. 67 Stat 462. 43 U.S.(C. thorized the commissioners courts in certain Gulf coun- � 1331 ra- 'eq.. the United States may enter into mineral leases of ties to "establish a dtme prolcti,,un lin, on the Ibarrier] ix- ():s areas becond the 3-marine-league limit I ex as has managed land or peninsula for the purpose of preserving sand mineral interestsinlardsbeneathitstidalwatersinte 1913 S1H). dunes that offer a defense against storm water and ero- ,,,a, note 2, at I. ston . ItS o. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'lc'x Nat. Resoscre, (ode � ('i tIll ci -1 (loirmccl-\ Tex lke nsion " Unless a permit is obtained, the damaging, 9i 'a a. 4 i :de �� 1-6. � ' ' ~ * C~~~~~~~~~~~~~<iv- Seat art 5415d, �� 1-6>. destruction or removal of a sand dune on a barrier I. This rlasshiatior is used or convenience and <onsistenc with island or peninsula seaward of an estlablished dune pro- other ann le in this series loever. tih tern, ,,A,, aed md!, is lection line is prohibited. 120 often used in 'lexas statutes and case lass and b) Texas legal writers to mean both those t co c-lasses of land defined in this se- ries as tidel;ands (lands lying between the lines of ntean high and mean loa vsater) and submnerged lands (lands lyinu sieaward of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS the line ol mean low water). 1 I. S Il). *, qr, rlntc 2. at V-4. Under the ederal (:oastal Zone Man- The author is grateful to William Mark Thompson, agement Ai l of 1972 (CZNIA). w6 Still 1281). I, U.S C � 1453(a), the seaward limit of the coastal zorne for f:ZMA fun dingZ pur- legal counsel, Natural Resources ])iMision, ''exas Ener- the seaward limit ol the coastal zone for (7.Nl.. funding Jur- poses is not necessarily related to a state's legal seaward tbound- gy and Natural Resources Advisory Council, Stale of arv. See note 32. tn/a. and accompanying text. 'he State of Texas, for providing some of the source materials cited Texas is "no longer attempting to implement the propotsals con- in this article. The author also appreciates the special tained in the state hearing draft. (and) the federal grant for de- assistance of J. E. McCarty, assistant director, Survey- velopment of a texas coastal program has been terminated.' ing D)ivision, General Land Office, State of Texas. Letter dated July 1, 19'1, afoma note 4. 12. Less than one-quarter. or about 100 miles, of Texas' (;ulf Coast beach land is set aside as putblic park land; the rest is in private ownership. Comment, 7he 7et.a* Open B'athr .14.: 1dh, Right a,, Beach .4,eo. 28 Baylor L.. Res. 383, 384 n 4 (19'76) REFERENCES 13. See note 84 el seq.. in/ri, and accompanying text regarding the Texas Open Beaches Act. I. Ilistorr has h'llpcd shalpe the a,,'. of the coast in Texas. perhaps 14. About one-half of Texas' coastal uplands was patented into pri- more than it nmosl other states After beiniz colonists under the vate ownership before 18411. when the common law was adopted Nlexi(an government that had succeeded earlier French and as the rule of decision for most purpttses in Texas. W Winters, Spanish rulers. T'exans revolted in 1835. In 1836 lih( insurgents The .Shorelin for .Spaonh and AMlex<,a,, (;rant? it 7rwx,. 38 Tex L. ftorm:all declared their independence and ratified a Constitution Rev. 523, 525 (1960). See also F-prnn an the Sand, ,f Time, -In for the newly proclaimed Republic of Texas. See 3 Tex Const. Eraluatn f the 7Teas .Seashore, Report of the Interim Beach Stud)y A 03nn. ; 5t3~ 7 IVernon t955) The independtnt Republic fottoved Committee of the Texas Senate and House of Representatives the Spianish/Mlexican version of the civil lasv until January 20. [hereinafter cited as Fosprcnf., 21 (2d printing 19701). I4lht, when tlte English common las was generallN accepted as 15. See "Determination of Tidal Boundaries." tnlru. the rule of decision. 2 Laws, Rep T'ex. 177 (I1840). ')n D)ecember 10. 9 Stat. 922, T'.S. No. 20'. This is similar to the effect of the treaty 29. 1845. Texas. relinquishing its full independence. was annexed in California. For a brief discussion of Califtrnia's Spanish and to the United Staltes. Joint Resolution No. I. 9 Stat. 108. But even Mexican rancho grants and the issuance of confirmatory patents, after entering the Union. Texas tontinued to adhere tco the Mexi- see Shore and Beac-h. Vol 49. No. 2. April 198 1. p 20. c(an system of mineral reservations in the sovecreign. Legal princi- 17. The State of Texas, as successor to the Kingdom of Spain. the ples from both the civil la" and the common law are melded into Republic of Mexico and the Republic of Texas, is the owner of Texas' current rules controlling tidal boundary determination, most of the tidelands within its borders. Rhnrrsagh v. Atlon, 34 public access to the sea, and use of coastal lands and waters. S.W. 791, 792 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896, no tritl). When admitted to 2. Sat,- Ileanrie I)Draft. 7erO (.bartal I'roraam [hereinafter cited as the Union, Texas retained ". . . all the vacant and unap- SIIl)}. 1, 11-16-18, 111-69-71. V'-22-24 (Septembter 19811). Muchof propriated public lands lying within its limits .. ."2 CGammel, Texas' oil and gas exploration and producticon takes place in the Lous of Texas 1225 (1898); 1 Sayles, Eacih La.t of Te.ra 568 (1888); tide and submerged lands lying off its coast. Joint--Resolution No. 8, March 1, 1845, 5 Stat. 797. Although 3. 86 Stat. 1280, 16 U.SC:. � 1451 et teq For a brief discussion of Texas had been an independent nation, the Joint Resolution for CZMIA. see .h,,rr anrid Bea, h. Vol 49. No I, January 191,. p. 18. the Admission of Texas into the Union expressly provided that CZMA was amended October 17. 1980), by the Coastal Zone the new state was admitted "on an equal footing with the origi- Management Improvement Act of 1980. Pub. L. No. 96-464, 94 nal States in all respects whatever." Joint Resolution No. 1, Dec. Stal. 206(0 (1980). 29, 1845, 9 Stat. 108. Arguably, this provides Texas with another, 4. Although tle proposed Texas Coastal Program, as set forth in though seemingly unnecessary, basis for asserting title to tide- the well-prelpared Settemlber 1981) State Hearing Draft (SHD, lands. See P. Daniel, Texat' Tirle to Submerged land.t, I Baylor L ,fr', note 2), will not be implemented. "Texas will continue to Rev. 237, 241-247 (1949). (For a brief discussion of the equal- manage its coast in accordance withi the responsilbilities of the footing doctrine, see Shnre and Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4, October 1980, various slate agent ies having concerns in this area " Letter dated pp. 15-16.) However, under a state law, Texas' title to certain July 1 1 981, from William Mark Thompson, legal counsel. Nat- tidelands was conveyed to some municipalities with more than ural Resources D)ivision. Texas Energy and Natural Resources 40,000 residents in 1920. Maufrais v. State, 142 'Tex. 559, 180 SW. Advisory Council. to the author. 2d 144 (1944); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 7467(a) (1925). Another law 5. "'The Texas coast extends 373 miles along the (;ulf of Mexico enables cities bordering on the Gulf of Mexico and having a pop- fronm Louisiana to the border of Mexico The shoreline continues ulation of more than 60,000 to use and occupy tidelands for park 2,50() miles along islands, peninsulas, marshes. bays and estu- purposes. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 6081g. In addition, special laws aries." Sill). u/pru, note 2, at 1. have relinquished the state's title to some local entities, e.g., 6. SHI). ti/ro, note 2, at V-23. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 5421j (filled-in land in Corpus Christi). 7. In its proposed Texas Coastal Program, the state indicated its Formerly, navigation districts could purchase tidelands from the willingness to "refrain from plating additional special restric- state and then resell them to private parties. See Footprints, suproa, tions on energy fatilities proposed for thle coastal area" and "to note 14, at 43. Other tidelands have been conveyed into private ent courage and accomnmodate installations antd failities related ownership by the Texas Legislature, but until early in this cen- to exploration, develoltment and production of energy resources; tury the executive branch of both the Republic and the state did including oflshorce oil antd gas s. ill), tn/a, note 2, at V-23. not grant such lands although the Texas G;eneral Land Office 8 tinder tihe Submerged I.ands Aot. 67 Slat. 29.43 L'.S(: � 13(01 et had begun disposing of other public lands in 1837. Footprints, ,eq., the State (ti Iexits has title to lands, including mineral de- supra, note 14, at 7. Later, the land commissioner was authorized OCTOBER 1981 29 pJoses If1 at 9. lilvs. 1,Xiniters, nord tite i'. AS lex. L.. Re.. it ;23. 328-5 ill 8 . See I )eteruinInitIiim ol Ilidil Boo iiiaiiriis fet, I S For aI brief ulls(cossion olI lie i i %ilI-las ro tle. see3re in / /l.,+h. ') ex. Wit er ( :idle I .1(21I(a) ( I9811 'ipp IVoL s. Nw .4. ( titolsir 1980, Ii. 1 7 2(1 Itx. Nit. Rrsiour( (-S (i~de �� 12 (fil 32.01)1 I iI' 2 M(ii 12 112. .39. I1) For a lhrief diei issiin 4 t il 1: ,mlish i onirmiitii-lawis III(., i'e 33,ie 13. 1) I I 3 131 3 3 113iII I2 '.t,,q 1 .,,III II Sl i iii oiin vrI If lIe ( erIl v; I Iv~I fal eah, Viil. 48, No. 4. ( )( tiller '181 1. 1i I II.ild( )Iffi e. is hlijrntina of I h S( hiiil La [il tioird. ..od Ilie gov'- Ill Fir itn exptlanatiion i. i lie rele an or FIorjildi ( Flgi I Itit ritL' nld ernir ,iiii the afititiriiv eia-ril Ca( h appoint onie ineniler to) tile C oaxstail Mappiing A(Ii laingiiige. see -Sh- .iwi /1b .s o.ii 411, No board. Tex Nat le'oiurces 0(iile � � 32.1112; a). (Ii)) 32.014 3. July )8 I, pp. 13-1 1, and ;iiimoliallwing leferc-iiies. 2 1 1'ex. Nait Reuiiurces ( odie � � 12 (101l 33.1112. 41 I 31Y)Tex. ;OOl. 324 S. XV 2d1 1(2' (11)38) 1,1 Hi r, hearlni,. 128 S XV2i 22. 1lex. Nat . Resiiuri es Code � 33.1111 , t i, SIl) /I, tlote 2. at 9201 ('Vex-Civ..\pp -WAtii 11Oil). I 8-9 412. 136 Tex. [Si, 293 S W 2id 710i ( 1)(i). 23. I Laws, Rely. Tex. 133 fl838). 43 296 U S5. 111(113)3. For a brief rliscsioiin III //mt., 5(e Sh,,rew.in 24. D aniel . '',i/', nile 1 7, 1 Ilayql ir 1..Rev, at 24 3. Beath, Vol. .18. Nit. 4, 0()tober I 980) pp1. I7--I8. 25 jiiint Rcsoiilitiont No. 1. D~e(. 29. 1845.1) Stat. 18.eeiliI atl. 44. I' t.PrInt. 'illn. miote 14, it 21. ,if/ni. ni t e I -, I Ba liir I. Re%, at 245. 415. CII VqCe&, tn v.3 Ial rr, 2.3'Vex. 34i) 3i) 81 1) ['This Ioingua ge 2(. 'Tex. 1843 Cmmnst., art VII, � 211. wats unnecessary tot tlte deinsium (i.. diiutni. liut 'bhecame rev- 17 I liosseser, the U. S Soipveme Court ruled itt MS1 filar mnider thle ogniuzed ais the rule in Texas, and . .. Nsa, repea'.ted - igtain ats r'emual-fmomiitng i'Iausc' i tm II i( )emc 21). 184S, jioint Resiiliut~ion dicita - in a nuirnher of I ases. 'lI~uni q , note 1 4. it 22. 0,1/rli, notes I atid 1". Tlexas had relitnquished to tile United 46. 144 Vex. Ii95, 19)1 SA.W.2d 71 (11(44). -rl. Icazer. 328 U.S. S52 States the new State's mineral rights in sublmerged landls. See ( 1946). c ase i ited in tnote 32, ipilra. ,ind a( (irrnipany ing, text. 47. F"-tprinhi lja/ni note 14, it 22. 28. 1) Stat. 2. F IS. Nit. 211' 48. Atid. See also legal iinitiment ators' views oti 1f1,di, I i/, note 3'. 21). II) Stat 10131, I.S. Nit. 2018. 19. Ii)) F.2d I'll (5th Cir. Nil1), a rt Ieni.'I.342 1 S, (21t (11)52). 311. Da niel, . s/ira. note 1 7, I B-aylor I..Rev, at 246i. 'S1. T[he llartvidi, ,ompil~ed iri-Spain circa 1 20i3. ' ai(i Iiired thle firceoif 3 1. Fur a briefcdiscussion oifthese vases, see Shin' sad Irish,1 VimI. 4)9 law . . . at 'Toledo in A.D.I. 15115. ...IThe /)mrlidit. except as No. 1. January P1)8I. 1) 17. mosdified bv the King, wits the basic law iif 'Shin atid Mexico'' 32.1 fiite' .Slatei v. Teva,, 33i) U S. 7117. 7 12-721) ( I') if). until aditption iifthe I it h-century ciil codes Winters, osira. niite 33. 6' Stat 29), 43 U.S.C. � 1301I el eq;. The act 's citnstitutiiinality ssai 35, 38 'Tex. L. Rev, at 328 n. 37. A sc holar translates the defiuti- subsequently upheld in .1,mh.,rna v. Tesai. 347 U_.S. 272 (19541. tilin of the seashore in Partida 3. Title 28. Law, 4 (1.6pez ed. 1 as 34. -Sll), vis/i, note 2. at V-4. See I 'iated Stale'i v. 1-"ijisiina, 364 U.S. ''althat space. . . cosered by the stater iof the sea at its hi ghe it 51)2 (1961)). See also Vex. Nat. Resources Code � 1 1.0)12. tide during the entire year, be it in winter oir in summer.''' li, at 33S. /.sI/ii v..33.de, 159) Tles. 501J, 324 SAV.2d 1(7" 195)j) uif'df 11 re- 528 (emphasis in oiriginal). See alsu other translations c ited at 528 hearinag. 328 SAV.2d i)20 (Tcx.Civ.A.pp.-Waco 1959). For de- n. 40. failed disc ussions of1 L.stei. see, e g . I/';iiit/iiai is/ra. note 14. at 5 I. One case translates the ancient Juistinian definitin in s fuilluiws: 22-23, C. Dinkins. Trvn, .eiiiahwP re'aindaer ILwt : The Efeit if.f Vi). "... the shiore of the sea in the fourth quarter iir %ir intr is ishere urat ta.1rl'i~jiial 1'Iifi 0iiu It) huston L.. Rev.43. 44-45, 48.49 the highest isave extends."'' Winters. .5/trd., noteu IS. 38 'Vex. L. (I 19"2); K. Roberts. The Lilse, (.a,,e-Loisiting Ihe Bosndiirt' ofthe Sea- Rev. at 528 n. 34. Ahire, 12 Baylor L Rev. 141-143. 146. ISMS152 156-158. 161-168 S 52. 15 SIF ex. at 531, 324 S W. 2d at 187 (emphasis Kidded). ( 19001). W. Winters. jr.. The .S'hire/ine/fir.Spantnh and .lfenuan Grant, 53. Ahid. in Tei'ai,. 38 Tex. L. Rev. 523. 525. 527-531 3, 34-537 (I1960); Recent S 54. 159 Tex. at 337, 324 S.W.2d it 191 (emphasis added). 1)ecisiuns. % 'ui~hle Watre' - .1/it Re/iahle Sjiftrn in Shoreline lDe- 5 5. Ahid. (emphasis added). tervlaiiiiiin i. the Ie 'if 'Alean /z,,'h Tide,''' i S. Tex. L.J. 2 13-2 14 S 56. See, e.g.. Fooitprints, /ipra. note 14. at 22-23 /.ittle, sruil elimi- (I~~~~~~~~~ti~~~~~~~~~l). n~~~~~~~~~~~~~ated the distinction itetween the common law rule . .and the 36 1/ideerv. Iindler, I 5(i 'Vex. 185. 29-3-SA.2d736 (1956). Fordetailed Mexican or Spanish rule," hiecause the "sertical difference be- discussiiins (if Ruidder and other 'Vexas case law concerning the tween the [datums of mean higher high water and mtean high seasward botundamry (if posts- 1840) upland grants, see, ~. F'uisprtntsi. water) along the Texas coast varies from 7.ero to 0 11 foot"), iii/ia5 no~te 14, at 22-23, lDinkins. oi/ira. note 35. II) Houston L. Roberts, is/ra, note 35. 12 Baylor L. Rev. at 151 ('-The difference Rev. at 43-46. Roberts. sigra, note 35, 12 Baylor L. Rev. amt 143, between [the datums ofl mean high tide and mean higher high 153-156, 158S-159, 163; Winters, us/ra, note 35, 38 Tex. L. Rev. at tide in Texas is generally small, and in manly inland bays they 525, 527,; Recent IDecisions, is/ra. note 35, 5 S. 'Tex. L.J. at 213. are identical"); Winters. sus/ra. note 35. 38 T'cx. L. Rev. at 531). 37. Before the 1958 lTtmes decisin, the'rexas Supreme Court had held 57. Winters, ni/ira, note 35. 38 Tex. L. Rev, at 5310 (empthasis added). that private ownership of Padre Island, even though derived from 58. Footprintts, sta/ra, note 14, at 22 (emphasis added). See also a Spanish grant, was bounded by the line of "mean high tide." Roberts, is/ira, note 35, 12 Baylor L. Rev. at 156. State v. Ba/ti, 144 'Tex. 195, 190 S.W.2d 7 1(1944), cerl. denied, 328 59. 156 Tex. 185, 293 S.W.2d 736 (19-56). The court, however, did not U.S. 852 (1946). Because of Bat/n and other pre-Lsutes cases, one expressly cite the Borax decision in its majority opinion, although prominent legal writer states: "The Texas coast line as such Boirax was referred to in the dissenting opinion. should be distinguished from the Gulf of Mexico beaches. . .. 60. 156 Tex. at 193. 293 S.W.2d at 741. Litigation previously established the line of mean high tide for 61. See Footprintns, mu/ira, note 14, at 23-24, Dinkins, is/ra, niote 35. 10 Padre Island, a Spanish land grant. Thus, treating the boundry Houston L. Rev. at 46-32; Roberts, li/ira, note 35. 121 Baylor L. [uic of Padre Island as being previously established, it appears Rev. at 169-172; Winters, tis/ra. note 35, 38 'Vex. L. Rev. at that no more than approximately 20%7 of the Gulf beaches are 532-536. bordered by Mlexican and Spanish grants affected by the Luttes 62. See Fiiapr/irt, tu.1/ra, note 14, at 23-24, lDinkins, is/ira. note 35. 11) decision." Roberts, (ip/ra, note 35, 12 Baylor L. Rev. at 141 n.2. Houston L. Rev. at 47-48; Roberts, Is/iril note 35. 12 Baylor L. But the same author points out that the court in the Luimes opin- Rev. at 169-172; Winters, vis/ra, note 35. 38 'Vex. L. Rev. at ion "stated that while the Rat/h case was controlling for Padre 530-536. Island, it could not be controlling on the general boundary ques- 63. For a brief discussion of California's artificial accretion doctrine. tion since the proper location of the boundary line tinder Spanish see Share amid Beach, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 198 1, p. 22. law was not the real issue before the court in the Ba/It case." Id. 64. 159 Tex. at 540, 324 SWV. 2d at 193. at 160. Another authority believes that Luttes was the first Texas 65. Liieinsv. Cr'aivlordPacktng Co., 142'rex. 51. ["5 S.W. 2d 410 (1943). case to hold directly and expressly "that the boundaries of tracts 66. Dinkins, sti/ra, note 35, 10 Houston L. Rev. at 47. granted prior to the Republic [or, more precisely, before January 67. Giles v. Bas,,re, 154 Tex. 366, 278 S.W.2d 830 (1955). 20, 1840, when Texas adopted the common law] were determined 68. Roberts, mi/ira, note 35, 12 Baylor L. Rev. at 171 (emphasis in by civil law." Dinkins, is/ira, note 35, 10 Houston L. Rev. at 44 original). See also Footprirnts, ti/ira. note 14, at 23-24. (note omitted; bracketed matter added). In any event, the effect 69. SHD. ilu/ra, note 2, at 11-14. of Lutaes is widespread, ranging from Roberts' estimate of 20%. of 70. N. E. Parker, "Barrier Islands, Beaches, and Citastal Engi- the Gulf shore to an assertion that "[aipproximately one-half of neers, " Shuure aend Beach, Val. 48, No. 4, October 1980, pp. 4, 6 (ref- the Texas littoral was titled" before the 1840 adoption of the erence omitted). 30 SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part VI: The Massachusetts Approach By PETER 1H. F. (;RABLR Offic c!f the A ttornry General, State of (.alifornia San Francri.-o, (.hallfrnia DAI) .I:Al. : BALANCE between public and private Under the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management A rights - first struck in early colonial days Program, the state's coastal zone encompasses lands -lies at the heart of the law of the coast in and waters from the seaward limit of its territorial sea Massachusetts. "landward to 100 feet inland of specified major roads, In 1641 the Massachusetts Bay Colony deemed the rail lines, or other visible rights-of-way."9 The zone in- public's right to fish in tidal waters so vital that this right cludes all of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nan- was incorporated in the colony's original Body of tucket as well as all coastal wetlands.'0 Liberties.' Yet only six years later, to encourage littoral These coastal zone lands may be divided into owners to build wharves, the colony extended private uplands, tidelands and submerged lands." upland titles to embrace adjacent tidelands, even though reserving public navigational rights.2 A. Uplands This balance between conflicting public and private rights in the 1,200 milesa of the Massachusetts coast is re- Most Massachusetts coastal zone uplands are pri- flected in the Bay State's contemporary legal approach to vately owned, with titles stretching back to early the coastal zone. colonial grants. However, privately held coastal wet- On the one hand, for example, the Commonwealth of lands, such as swamps and marshes, are subject to Massachusetts was the first state in the Union to enact a broad state and local regulation."2 statute to protect coastal wetlands' and the first Atlantic Coast state to boast a federally approved coastal zone B. Tidelands management programs But on the other hand, public beach access is rela- In Massachusetts, unlike most other coastal states, tively restricted in Massachusetts, and recent efforts to private parties' upland titles generally extend water- increase it have been thwarted, partly because of the ward to include the adjoining tidelands.'" This reflects a 1647 grant of much of the seashore into private owner- departure from the English common law. In England, ship.6 at the time the colonization of America began, the con- cept that the crown owns the tidelands was gaining ac- TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN THE ceptance." COASTAL ZONE Massachusetts' divergence from the English common law can be traced to the colonial ordinance of 1647.'6 The lands and waters within what is now the Corn- Before then, in general, grants were limited to the line monwealth of Massachusetts were claimed by the Eng- of high water.' In 1810 the state's Supreme Judicial lish crown by right of discovery.? Title to the area with- Court said the object of the ordinance was to encourage in the present state boundaries was transferred by upland owners to erect wharves, because they were nec- grants from James I and Charles II to the companies essary for commerce and the colony could not build chartered to colonize Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay them at public expense.'7 Colonies. These companies and the various colonial Contrary to some recent judicial decisions in other governments in turn granted much of the lands into pri- states, the Massachusetts courts have continued to view vate ownership. On July 4, 1776, upon the signing of the the public's rights in tidelands as limited. In 1974 the Declaration of Independence, Massachusetts became a state's highest court favorably cited early decisions that sovereign state and the owner, in trust, of previously un- "a littoral owner may build on his tidal land so as to ex- granted lands under navigable waters, including tide- clude the public completely as long as he does not un- lands.9 reasonably interfere with navigation.'"8 * Thit i the sixth in a seri es/farticles preentin a capsule Versin of the fonltemprary lau C. Submerged Lands of th, roast for non.-ttornes. 7he article briefi) summarizes aspects ,f the statutorn and rase lasu of the (ommonuealth of Massachusetts concerning the coastal. one.u'itheephasis The Submerged Lands Act of 1953' confirmed Mas- on the state's rules of laU Jor tidal boundasr determination Space hmitations preclude an in-deth anal)loi of mann nf these topic, or an) d.russmon f reiated matters The ,ie .,. ei- sachusetts' ownership of submerged lands seaward to 3 pressed in this and the other artile in the seres do not necesaril reflet those ofthe Off ice geographical miles from the coast. of the Attomn enralSiatr of Calfirio, or any other agen-i of the SAttSe General State itf Chalifrnia or any other the Sate Cu (rahjotd C IYI2 b) Pete, tl. F ;aber- 7h auth, ralsr asertsr copyrigh! potectn.lo, thefirstfv-, In 1975, however, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected artcles In athe seres the contention of Massachusetts and other Atlantic Coast states that each of them had "the exclusive right JANUARY 1982 13 of dominion and control over the seabed underlying the cannot be more than 100 rods - or 1,650 feet - sea- Atlantic Ocean seaward from its coastline to the limits ward of the line of mean high water because of the of the jurisdiction of the United States," including the qualifying language in the ordinance. area beyond the 3-mile limit.20 Historically, Massachusetts has had considerable liti- The commonwealth has granted some submerged gation regarding the division of flats, or tidelands, lands into private ownership, but the Massachusetts among adjoining private owners. Besides the basic prin- Supreme Judicial Court stated in 1979 that such grants ciple that an owner should have a fair and propor- can be made "only to fulfill a public purpose, and that tionate share of flats in front of his upland, the courts the rights of the grantee to that land are ended when have developed a number of rules to apply to the that purpose is extinguished. "21 division of flats where there are sinuosities in the shore- In the case, which involved statutes allowing the ex- line."3 tension of wharves in Boston Harbor,22 a development There is a statutory scheme providing for the land corporation, as the grantee's successor, had converted a court's determination of the boundaries of flats, al- portion of the property seaward of the historic extreme though the decision does not bind the state unless it low-water mark into shops, offices, restaurants and con- consents to becoming a party."3 dominiums. The court '.eld that the corporation's title to the disputed property was subject to the condition that it be used for the public purpose for which it was C. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location granted, such as a wharf or warehouse." This decision of the Shoreline has many ramifications and has prompted the introduc- tion of proposed legislation to terminate the state's Generally, under Massachusetts law, the legal "vestigial rights" in such lands.24 boundary between publicly and privately owned lands -whether the ordinary high-water mark or the extreme low-water mark - shifts with accretion and erosion.36 DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES In one interesting case, an artificially created beach was formed seaward of a seawall built by the owners of A. Upland/Tideland Boundary summer homes fronting on Wild Harbor in Falmouth. Although the state had created and maintained the new Although the "line of extreme low tide" generally beach by dredging and pumping sand from the floor of constitutes the property boundary between public and the harbor and by building jetties, the Massachusetts private lands within Massachusetts' coastal zone, some Supreme Judicial Court held that title to the artificial cases suggest that upland parcels originally granted be- beach was in the homeowners, subject to certain public fore the colonial ordinance of 1647 may extend seaward rights.' only to the line of high water." The 1978 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management In other instances, such as when an upland parcel is Program, noting numerous points of critical erosion described as being bounded "by the beach," or when along the commonwealth's coastline,37 emphasizes "the the upland and adjacent flats are separately deeded, the use of non-structural measures where feasible" to pro- "ordinary high-water mark" is the legal boundary.2 tect against erosion.38 The program favors such meas- The courts appear to follow the 1854 English common- ures as beach nourishment and dune rebuilding, espe- law rule,27 which in effect equates the legal word "ordi- cially in such areas as barrier beaches, but notes that nary" with the technical term "mean," in defining the structural solutions to erosion problems "are probably ordinary high-water mark.2' more appropriate to urban areas."a" For regulatory purposes, as distinguished from prop- The program recognizes that existing ports and har- erty boundaries, the commonwealth follows the Na- bors, already safeguarded from hazards by bulkheads tional Ocean Survey's practice of defining "high water and other protective works, are extremely valuable, and mark" in terms of a 19-year mean of all the high that their use should be maximized rather than creating waters.29 new harbor facilities.'� New Bedford Harbor furnishes an example of an ex- isting harbor with protective works. The New Bedford, B. Tideland/Submerged Land Boundary Fairhaven and Acushnet Hurricane Barrier (Fig. 1), built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1962-66, In 1647 the assachusetts Bay Colony adopted the protects about 1,400 acres of commercial and industrial ordinance that changed the prior law limiting private .' . . ordinance that changed the prior law limiting private land and the adjoining waterfront areas. The barrier in- upland ownership to the line of high water.30 The ordi- ludes 4.75 miles of dikes in three separate sections, nance, as published in 1649, provided in part: cludes 4.75 miles of dikes in three separate sections, nance, as published in 1649, provided in part: pumps, and a 150-foot-wide navigation gate. "... [It is declared that in all creeks, coves and other places, about and upon salt water where the Sea ebs and flows, the Proprietor of the land adjoyning shall MASSACHUSETTS' PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE have propertie to the low water mark where the Sea does not ebb above a hundred rods, and not more With some limitations presumably dictated by the wheresoever it ebs farther . . ."8 early colonial laws, Massachusetts recognizes the public The term "low water mark," as used in this colonial trust doctrine - the common-law concept that the pub- ordinance, has been interpreted by the courts as mean- lic is entitled to use tidal waters irrespective of whether ing the "lowest ebb of the tide from natural causes" and the underlying lands are publicly or privately owned. the "extreme low water mark."'" However, that line The Massachusetts Bay Colony's ordinance of 1641, 14 SHORE AND BEACH A,~~~~~~~~. Fig. 1. Hurricane barrier across the mouth of New Bedford Harbor protects that city (left) and the neighboring communities of Fairhaven and Acushnet in southeastern Massachusetts. (Photography by New England Division, Department of the Army Corps of Engineers) illuliuidrI ill Oil,: ol- lB~ ) li(-ijti ( ()I~I( (d Ith puhlli( tti\i Iii itIii% it it ;I A)TS, decpisio I a ill ii' if Ia silo I ii~ i II ii tii iidill Hi' U 101*(s li ihi s nla 1)(1 1ji 011111 oithervnde ri- Ildi'll'J':111~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~I lliii id ;11. h.-%- h-ii- 'Litill1 I sae l~~~~~~~~~ofs Ill( it 1itisatv livld slot II(itu. bt'NNOitti-X Iit IbiS 11111ti .1littl li f~ill ttitS ' ;iL11 tof the pfo- t llhoiiIii Illue tui linv ',ix vclit. l L11c li ittiiih I;IIIk %itit Iii l~i-(iti.ij(I lit, iiiith-ssticTtshuihdic unotic ai JANUARY oNI(-hi 15 fcln wllT~ PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS Erratum in 'Part V: 'hle colonial ordinance of 16.17. granting Ic to tide- The Texas Approach" ,lands to private ul)lind owners. has had a great intlu- ence on Massachusetts law relating to prix ate littoral in .. . rights. The commonwealth's highest tribunal has rc- .\ line was inadvertently omitted in the last article in rights. the c omm onw ealth's h ighest tribunal has ran this series, "The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell: Part peatedly stressed the purpose of the ordinance sin V: The Texas .\pproach,". Shore a Beach, Vol. 49, No. 4, for example, that It was 'designed to encounrae the (e- O)cthoter 1981, pp. 24-31. velopment of private means of access to the sea."58 Pche 981, 6th paragraph under " Public Access Ri2hts Nevertheless, the court has upheld the state's au- Page 28, 6th paragraph under "Public Access Rights I should read ats follouvs: Mthority to cut off a littoral owner's exclusive right of ac- Mloreover, the act expressly provides99 that it "shall cess to tidal waters where the public project is directly not be construed as affecting in any way the title of the in aid of navigation, as distinguished from a project owners of land adjacent to ani state-owned beach96 bor- only incidentally related to navigation.0 derin, on the sea',ard shore of the Gulf of Mexico .. Since at least 1866, filling activities by private owners "The act does not apply to such protective structures of uplands and adjoining flats have been regulated by as groins, seawalls and jetties erected or maintained by the state.6" Similarly, wharfing-out rights are subject to federal or state agencies.7 governmental restrictions.2 LEASING AND REGULATION OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS In 1974 the Massachusetts court's justices were asked for an advisory opinion4 by the state's House of Repre- A. Leasing sentatives as to the constitutionality of a bill recognizing "a public on-foot free right-of-passage" along the Massachusetts law authorizes the director of the divi- shore.48 All but one of the justices on the court con- sion of mineral resources within the Department of En- cluded that the proposed law would violate both federal vironmental Quality Engineering to (1) license the and state constitutional provisions requiring payment of "orderly exploration" for oil, gas and other mineral re- fair compensation when private property is taken for a sources6 within the state's "coastal waters'"" and public purpose.'" underlying lands, and (2) "lease exclusive rights for ex- The justices stated that an "'on-foot right-of-passage' traction of such mineral resources as hae been dis- is not . . . related" to the rights of fishing, fowling and covered. navigation reserved to the public by the colonial ordi- nance.50 They flatly said: "We are unable to find any B. Regulatory Functions authority that the rights of the public include the right to walk on the beach.""' "[l1n 1963, Massachusetts became the first state in Rejecting the argument that public uses of the sea- the nation to protect wetlands by statute."' The pre- shore "change with time and now must be deemed to sent Wetlands Protection Act"7 prohibits the filling, include the important public interest in recreation," the dredging or other altering of wetlands, beaches, dunes justices stated: and flats unless a permit is obtained from the local con- ..ITJhe grant to private parties effected by the servation commission. Regulations issued by the state's colonial ordinance has never been interpreted to provide Department of Environmental Quality Engineering "de- the littoral owners only such uncertain and ephemeral fine key [statutoryv terms and establish a framework for rights as would result from such an interpretation. The local decision making and appeals to the state rights of the public ... have ... been strictly confined to agency. "', these well defined areas . . . .,5 Various other Massachusetts statutes and regulations The Massachusetts justices thus declined to expand the govern use of tide and submerged lands. Under the public trust doctrine to encompass beach recreational Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act, the commissioner of use, contrary to the position taken by the courts in Cali- environmental management may "adopt, amend, modi- fornia63 and New Jersey.'. fy or repeal orders regulating, restricting or prohibiting .s one legal commentator who analyzed the opinion dredging, filling, removing or other altering, or pollut- sars, it "indicates that there is no easy way to increase ing, coastal wetlands."" The Department of Environ- public access to beaches in Nlassachusetts." 5 .\mong mental Quality Engineering administers the Waterways approaches he suggests are "outright purchase of se- Permit and License Program, which requires licenses lected beach sites," the encouragement of "[glifts or for such work as "the construction or extension of a dedications of private beaches to the public ... by offer- wharf, pier, dam, sea wall . . . or other structure, or for ing . . . tax incentives" and "[clompulsory dedications the filling of land or flats."7� The commissioner of the [by subdividersl of beaches or access to existing pu.blic department has issued regulations governing the grant- beaches."96 ing of waterways licenses and permits. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Pro- In addition to these state-level statutes and regula- gram expressly calls for improving public access to tions, many coastal municipalities exercise local control coastal recreation facilities and providing "technical as- under zoning laws and bylaws. In 1979 the state's high- sistance to developers of private recreational facilities est court decided that a town is not preempted by state and sites that increase public access to the shoreline."5" law from enacting a wetlands protection bylaw." 16 SHORE AND BEACH The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Pro- 9. MCZMP' sulkt, note 3. at 14. gram was the first such program on the Atlantic Coast 1 is used for onvnnt and onsisten with 11. This classification is used for cony erec and consistency with to gain formal federal approval. The program, as ap- other articles in this series. Massachuselts law, often uses the term proved in April 1978, expressly intends "to rely solely on flat, as a synonym for tidelands. In this series, tidelands have been existing statutory authority.""2 Massachusetts thus fol- defined as extending to the line of mean laos water. However, as is lows a different course than California, which estab- pointed out under ")etermination of Tidal Boundaries." info, the "extreme leow tide," in general, is the seanward limit of tidelands in lished a new coastal land-use management agency. private ownership in \iassachuses The program is administered by the Executive Office 12 A full discussion of state and loral regulation of coastal wetlands of Environmental Affairs,"s whose secretary has issued is be':ond the scope of this article. However. the Massachusetts CZ1'A regulations to implement the program. Twenty- laws is briefi' summari7ed under "Leasing and Regulation of (:oastal Zonie Land~ and Waters," ira. seven policies are set forth in the program, ranging from . oal eand sis i/. 13F nomre detailed discussions inol the Massa(husetts lass' concern- energy issues to the protection of "ecologically signifi- in privatr ownership oftidelands, see i. Frankel. Lou (,!Saohjic cant resource areas (salt marshes, . . . barrier beaches, II a ter and I atr, (our.. ain, .iah.t (196). While- and salt ponds) for their contributions to marine pro- s, L te hor, 7det e, and reat din asahe, ductivity and value as natural habitats and storm anwlMin, (1932> Commen, upm, note -. 11 Ness Eng. L. Re. at ~~~~~~~~~~~buffers. "~ ~115-117; Note. Coastal It'tland, m .'se ;ngland, 52 Boston i.L.Rev. 724, 732, 753-754 (1972). 14. For a brie[ discussion of the development of the English common ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~~~~~~~~~~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS law, see the first article in this series, Shore & Beach. Vol. 48. No. 4, October 1980. p. 15. The author is grateful to Gary Clayton, chief, scien- 15. Under this Massachusetts Bay Colon) ordinance, which is dis- tific and engineering section, and David P. Drake, coun- cussed under "Determination of Tidal Boundaries" and "Massa- sel, Coastal Zone Management in the Executive Office chusetts' Public Trust Doctrine." tnfro, grantees of littoral lands by the colonial government were vested with title to tidelands sub- of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachu- ject to certain reserved public rights. After 1692, the ordinance was setts, for providing some of the source materials cited in applied to all parts of Massachusetts. including the then province this article. of Maine and territories that had been within the Plymouth charter. Commonuwealth v. Aluer,. suora, 61 Mass. (7 Gush.) 53, 76. 16. Id. at 69-70. However, there had been some earlier grants of tide- ~~~~~~~~REFERENCES ~lands. For example, a grant of the fiats near Noddle's Island (East Boston) had been made as early as 18401. See Commonweaolth v. C'z . The Massachusetts Bay Colon)y. by its 1629 royal charter, had the Boston) had been made as early as 14. See Commonwealth v. Ct oqf RoyburD, supra, 75 Mass. (9) Gray) 451, 495. "power . .. to make laws for its settlements 'so as such law's and f Roxbu!s, supra, 75 Mass. (9 Gray)451, 495. powerd tot mnakey s or irsepugnant lt sth s and s17. Stoer v. Freeman, 6 Mass (6 Tyng) 435, 438 (1810t). The case re- ordinances be not conarary or repugnant to the laws and statutes ferred to the ordinance as having "force as our common law," of this our realm of England.'" I R. Powell, The Lawe of Real Prop- even though it was subsequently annulled. id. even though it was subsequently annulled. Itha'. erlt ' 50 at 126 (Rev. ed. 1977). The Body of Liberties, enacted by 18. Opinion ofhe7sis, sur. 365Mass.1, 687 313N.E.2d561, 566. the colonv's lawmakers, included what is referred to as the colont- 19. 67 Stat. 29; codified at 43 U.SC. � 131 a seq. al ordinance of 1641 protecting the rights of fishing and lowling 21. nedSta coain,' 420 U.S. 515,517-518 (1975). Thecourt relied 20. l'mteld Statesv. M~aine, 420 L:.S. 5 15, 517-518 (1 975). The court relied (or hunting birds). For the text of this ordinance. see "Massachu- on its earlier decisions in d S i v. ui 339 U.S. 699 on its earlier decisions in I 'tted State. s'. Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 setts' Public Trust Doctrine," infra. (The term "ordinance" was (1950); and United States . eas, 339 U.S. 707 (19). (1950); and Urntpd States v�. Texas, 339 U!.S. 7037 (1950i. then used to mean a general law� or statute.) then used to mean a general la or statute.) 21. Boston Wlaterfront Development ('or/,. v. (Commonueallh. supra, 393 2. In 1647 the colonial ordinance of 1641 was amended to provide N.E.2d 356, 367. that liltoral owners' titles, which had ended at the line of high that littoral owners' titles, which had ended at the l ine of high 22. At issue were the three so-called Lewis Wharf statutes passed in water. were extended seaward to the low-water mark or to 00 1832, 1834 and 1835. "This series of statutes was but one of a mul- rods (1,650 feet) beyond the high-water mark, whichever was more tirade of similar acts passed in the learly 19th century] granting landward. The law, as amended, is frequently referred to as the p 1 g g various [private] parties wharf privleges in Boston Harbor." Id., "1641-1647 ordinance." However, the ordinance of 1647 is treated various priatel parties wharf privileges in Boston Harbor. Id., 393 N.E.2d at 361. in this article separately from the ordinance of 1641. This is con- 23 Id., 393 N.E.2d at 369. 23, ld., 39)3 N.E.2d at 369. sistent with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's discus- sison in tosthn Mlaatsachnt tseSrulo/rmej dor/i v. Commonurtlth, d s 24. Comment, supra, note 7, 16 New Eng. L.Rev. at 109.110, 131-133. Proposed legislation (lass S No. 1001 (1981), Mass. H. No. 658 Mlass. Adv. Sh. 1992, 393 N.E.2d 356 (1979). For the text of the colonial ordinance of 167, se9 "Dettermination of Tidal Bound- (1981)) has been introduced, but to date not passed, which would clnariese" "erinatioao TdlBu-permit the termination of the commonwealth's "vestigial rights" 3..tlaoacnhuoettn Coastal Zne !sana4'men rgrarm and Fifnal Eniron- in certain Boston waterfront lands. InJune 1981 the justices of the 3. Msm ctntosal on aetnd Fhreinaftler cite asCSupreme Judicial Court answered some of the questions concern- mental Impart Statement lhereinafter cited as 1C:ZM1PI 2 (1978). mente Ieasn aen reg ionaoftr coita ned Las and 219ing these two bills submitted by the two legislative houses. Space 4. See "Leasing and Regulation of Coastal Zone Lands and 4See"Lesngand Reg n ofi stalne Lands an d idoes not permit a discussion of the advisory opinions, but the jus- Walers," m fro. The first statute ,,,as enacled in 1963. ~~~~~~Waters,"~~~~~ irtfra. s~tires did state that they believed "the Legislature has authority to 5. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program was pre- surrender any so-called vestigial or residual public rights in law- surrender any so-called vestigial or residual public rights in law- pared pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of fully filled, formerly submerged, land." See Mass. S. No. 2252, slip 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. � 1451 et seq. The program was ap- op. at 8-9 (June 18, 1981). proved by the federal government in April 1978. 25. Bo.ston v. Richardson, 105 Mass. 351, 353, 359-360 (1870); Tappan v. 6. The justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in anham, 90 Mass. ( Alen) 65, 71-72 (1864). However in mmon- advisory opinion, ruled that a bill declaring a public "on-foot free uaalmh V. Ca0 Ms(Axbur), supro, 75 ass. (9 1ra)) 451,491,496-498, wealth s'. Oil) often'shut), supra, 75 Mlass. (9 Gray) 451, 491,496-498, right-of-passag " along the seashore was unconstitutional. Opinlion right-of-passage" along the seashore as unconstitutional. Opinn 503, it is stated that if a grant preceded the colonial ordinance, the of theiu .UStte.I, 365 Mass. 681, 313 N.E.2d 561 (1974). The bill and passage of that law operated to "annex" the adjacent flats to the this opinion are discussed under "Public Access Rights," rnfra.pasgofttlwoeredo"nexthajcntltsote this opinion are discussed under "Public Access Rights," infroupland, providing the grant clearly had been bounded by the sea. For a brief explanation of advisory opinions in Massachusetts, see 26. Lhfid v. Scituate, 136 Mass. 38. 48-49 (1883); Ail'e v. Patch, 79 note 47, tnfra. note 47, infra. Nlass. (13 Gray) 254, 257-258 (1859). 7. Martin v. lWaddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367, 408 (1842); Commonwealth 2 . 13Gray) 254, 28 v. Gas of Ro\vfsrs, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 45 1, 478 (1857). See also Com- 27. ,ttornme)-G;eneral v. C(hamhers, 4 DeG.M.&G 206, 43 Eng. Rep. 486 (1854). For a brief discussion of the English common-law rule, see ment, B'oion W'aterfrosnt Dlaelopmentf Corporation . (ommonwealth: Titlel the first article in this series, Shore & Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4, to ILand Setwardof the Historic Low- l'ater line, 16 New Eng. L.Rev. October 1980, . 17 October 1980, p. 17. 109, 115-117 (1980). ~~109, ~115-117 (190~80~). ~28. This was the view of the U. S. Supreme Court in Borax, Ltd v. City 8. (.Commonrcaltb v. Al.ger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 82, 93 (1853). See ( l.oo ngeles, 296 U.S 10,25(1935), citing East Boston Co. v. Con- also ShUivel v. bou t/i, 152 U.S. 1, 14-15 (181)4); Marlin v. W'addell, motrePollh, 203 Mass. 68, 72, 89 N.E. 236, 237(1909); Commonwealth supma, 41 U.S. (16 Ptet.) 367, 410. v. Ci!t yfRoxbuD, supra, 75 Mlass. (9 (;ray) 451,471,482-483, 503. JANUARY 1982 17 29. In regulations promulgated in 1978 by the commissioner of the developed body of common law in %Massachusetts and other itatei Department of Environmental Quality Engineering to carry out regarding the public trust responsihilities of the state. ()ne exam- certain statutory functions, "high-water mark" is defined as "the pile of this fiduciary duty imposed upon the Commonwealth by the mean high water line or the arithmetic mean of the high water common law is the duty to protect the tidelands for the c(omrnmon heights over a specific 19-year metonic cycle (the National Tidal benefit. Between the low water mark and the high water mark, the Datum Epoch) and shall be determined using hydrographic sur- public trust encompasses the reserved public rights of Fishing, vey data of the National Ocean Survey of the U.S. Department of lsling and navigation.... Below low teater ... ithe puhl, trnt slr,1 Commerce." Mlass. Regs. for Administration of Waterways Li- ,n.ludeI the uli to protert puhh, land' for the,,,rsnn hene/it. in addition censes � 4 (34). The statutes for which these regulations were is- to protecting . . . aim other roht, u.se~. or actizitite, ,r rertctionlif ufpn sued are discussed under "Private Littoral Rights" and "Leasing right,. roes or atsities for ihth there ii a greatertih bellefit than publi and Regulation of Coastal Zone Lands and Waters," infra. detriment." (Emphasis added.) 30. (Corrmrn'ealth v. .41ger, supra, 61 Mass. (7 Gush.) 53, 69-70. 47. Advisory opinions are given by the court's "justices as individuals 31. Whittlesey, repra, note 13, at xxxvii. The ordinance contained limi- in their capacity of constitutional advisers of the other depart- tations discussed under "Massachusetts' Public Trust Doctrine," ments of [state] government ..., are not adjudications by the inrra. court, and do not fall within the doctrine of ,t&re deti.st Iprece- 32. See, e.g., art Boroomn o. v (.',mmonm ealth, supra, 203 Mass. 68, 72, 89 dent]." Conmmonwealth v. iWelosky, 276 Mass. 398, 400, 177 N.E. 656, N.E. 236, 237-238 (distinguishing the term "low water," as used in 658(1931). the ordinance of 1647, from "ordinary low water marke," as used in 48. The bill provided in part: "It is hereby declared and affirmed that a 1640 grant); Sea/all Etc. Co. v. Boston Water P. Co., 147 Mass. 61, the reserved interests of the public in the land along the coastline 64, 16 N.E. 782, 786 (1888) ("extreme low-water mark"). See also of the commonwealth include and protect a public on-foot free Frankel, ,pra, note 13, at 46; Whittlesey, supra, note 13, at 53. right-of-passage along the shore of the coastline between the mean 33. See e g., Iris v. Hlinghom, 303 Mlass. 401, 404-405, 22 N.E.2d 13, 15 high water line and the extreme low water line subject to the (1939); Wosrm v. l',n,,on. 14 Mass. (14Allen) 71,79-80 (1807). See [stated] restrictions and limitations .. ."The bill is set forth in also Frankel, srpra, note 13, at 47-50; Whittlesey, supra, note 13, at (pinion ofthe.7ustice, rprM, 365 Mass. at 682-684 n. 1.313 N.E.2d at 59-64. 563-564 n. 1. 34. Mlass. Gen. Laws, ch. 240, � 19-26. 49. Id., 365 Mass. at 691-092, 694, Ii N.E.2d at ,tH-t'), 571 35. Michaelson v..Silher Beach Improve. Ass 'n, 342 Mass. 251,253-254, 173 iO50. Id., 365 Mass. a;t 686,. 313 N.E-2d at 566. N.E.2d 273, 275 (1961); East Boston Co. v. Commonwealth, supra, 203 51. Id.. 365 Mass. at 687, 313 N.E.2d at 567. Mlass. 68, 75, 89 N.E. 236, 238. The private owner is entitled to the 52. Id., 365 Mass. at 688, 313 N.E.2d at 567. accretion even if it is partially caused by a publicly built break- 53. Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal.3d 251, 98 Cal.Rptr. 790, 491 P.2d 374 water. Burke v. (.Cormonimealth, 283 .Mlass. 63, 68, 186 N.E. 277, 279 (1971). (1933). 54. Borough of.Veptune (ith v. Borough of.4tson-by-the-Sea, 61 N.J. 296, 294 36. .Mlchaelson v. Si/ver Beach Improve. Ass'n, supra, 342 Mass. 251, 259, A.2d 47 (1972). 173 N.E.2d 273, 278. The court distinguished Homefor Aged Women 55. Who Owcns the Beach? .Masrachuselltts Refuses to .7oin the Trend of Increas- v. Commonwealth, 202 Mass. 422, 89 N.E. 124 (1909), which upheld ing Aihlic .Access, II Urban L. Ann. 283, 290 (1976). the state's right to deprive the riparian owner of access to a tidal 56. Id. at 292. river by the construction of a dam and locks and filling lands 57. MCZMP, tupra, note 3, at 83-86. waterward to a seawall on the theory that project, unlike the cre- 58. Michoelson v. Sil/er Beach omprove. .ss'n, 'supra. 342 Mlass. 251, 257, ation of the beach. was directly and reasonably related to the im- 173 N.E.2d 273, 277. provement of navigation. 59. Hsmefor Aged lWomen v. Co.'mmonmealth. supra, 202 Mlass. 422, 435, 89 37. MCZIP, rupro, note 3, at 17-19. The map in the final report N.E. 124, 129. shows critical erosion along most of the coastline except along 60. .Michaelson v. Siler Beach Improve. Ass'. supra, 342 Mass. 251, 257, Massachusetts Bay near Boston and along Cape Cod's southerly 173 N.E.2d 273, 277. This case is discussed briefly under "De- shore. termination of Tidal Boundaries,"' upra. 38. Id. at 76-78. 61. For early statutes regarding filling. see Mass. St;tat. 1866, ch.149'); 39. Id. at 77. See also i. at 41-44, 47-48 (policy to approve "erosion Mass. Stat. 1869. ch. 432; and Mlass. Stat. l1872. (h. 236. :Current control projects only when it has been determined that there will statutes and regulations a;re discvused briefly under "l.e:asing and be no significant adverse effects on the project site or adjacent or Regulation of (:lo;astal Zone Lands and Wa.ters." infra. downcoast areas"), 75. 62. Beginning in 1837, various statutes establishing lines for Boston 40. The program refers to and depicts a number of proposed desig- Harbor were enacted. Although such laws did not apply to nated port areas. MICZMP, supra, note 3, at 19-26. Pointing out wharves and other structures built before their passage, the laws that "I[e]xisting deep-water channels are ideally suited for accom- were upheld with respect to subsequently built wharves extending modating uses which are of state or national importance," the beyond the harbor lines. Commonwealth v..4ger, supra, 61 Mlass. (7 program encourages the location of maritime-dependent industrial Cush.) 53, 103-104. developments in these areas. Id. at 25, 54-57, 79-82. 63. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 21, � 54. 41. Whittlesey, upra, note 13, at xxxvi. 64. The term "coastal waters" is defined in part as "all waters of the 42. For the language of the ordinance of 1647, see "Determination of commonwealth within the rise and fall of the tide and the marine Tidal Boundaries," sprao. Although the 1647 grant has been held jurisdiction of the commonwealth." Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 130, � 1. to have transferred the fee title to the tidelands to private owners, 65. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 21, � 54. See also Mlass. Gen. Laws, ch. 91, � the ordinance, as published in 1649, expressly provided "that such 2. [private] Proprietor shall not by this libertie have power to stop or 66. A. Dawson. Protecting .Mlassachusett Wetands, 12 Suffolk UL. Rev. hinder the passage of boats or other vessels, in or through any sea 755, 757 (1978). The article traces the subsequent history of wet- creeks, or coves to other mens houses or lands." Whittlesey, lands protection legislation. repra, note 13, at xxxvii. 67. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 131, � 40. This statute combines the pre- 43. The courts have consistently held that "a littoral owner may build viously separate "coastal" and "inland" wetlands protection acts. on his tidal land so as to exclude the public ctompletely as long as 68. T. McGregor & A. Dawson, Wetlalnds and boodplaain Protection, 64 he does not unreasonably interfere with navigation." (Opinion of the lass. L. Rev. 73, 76 (1979). 7uottces, irpra, 365 Mlass. 681, 687, 313 N.E.2d 561, 566. 69. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 130, � 105. 44. Id., 365 Mass. at 685, 313 N.E.2d at 566. 70. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 91, � 14 (1981 supp.) 45. Buter v. .Attorny (General, 105 lMass. 79, 83-84, 80 N.E. 688. 689 71. Lovequistv. Townof Dennis, 79 Mass. Adv. Sh. 2210. 303 N.E 21 85,8 (1907). The court noted that this was the English rule, citing (19')79). This decision is discussed in Btrown. Hlome Rule Wetlands Brickman v. Matley, [19041 2 Ch. 313. Protection in Mlassachusetts: I.vequist v. Concemration Commimsion of the 46. Some statutory and administrative limitations on development of Town of Dennis, 9 B.C. Env. Afi. I..Rev. 103 (l'980). Sece also privately owned tidelands are discussed under "Leasing and Reg- Mlc(Gregor & Dawson, supra, note i68, at 7'9-80). ulation of Coastal Zone Lands and Waters," infra. in a commen- 72. MCZMP, supra, note 3, at 34. tary incorporated in the Department of Environmental Quality 73. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 21A. Engineering's 1978 regulations forthe administrationof waterways 74. MCZMP, supra, note 3, at 36-99. licenses, supra, note 29, at 23, it is stated: "There is a well- !8 SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part VII: The New Jersey Approach By PETER H. F. GRAB3ER Office of the Attorney General, State of California San Francisco, California N III. P'PULAR ^;AME of Monopoly the players corn- and waterfronts of the Hudson and Delaware Rivers and pete to acquire imaginary real estate in Atlantic the controversial region of the Hackensack City. In real life, gambling casino developers and the Meadowlands.7 State of New Jersey today are vying over actual property For convenience and consistency with other articles in rights in that seaside resort. this series, lands within the state's coastal zone may be This is only one of numerous controversies that have divided into uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.' erupted along New Jersey's 126-mile Atlantic Ocean However, this classification scheme must be used with coast' and in other parts of its coastal zone in recent caution here because of uncertainties over title to many years, as land values sharply escalated and gambling coastal zone parcels, some of which arguably may be was legalized. classified as either uplands or tidelands. The Atlantic City battle is a high-stakes contest about Under the theory that the state is the sovereign owner whether an historic high-water line should be used to of tide-flowed lands, New Jersey public officials have divide private and public rights in coastal lands.' The claimed some areas of marsh and meadowland? dispute may have spurred the voters' approval in Similarly, disputes over the location of the "former mean November 1981 of a constitutional amendment allowing high-tide line" have raised serious title questions along the state only one year to map and assert its claims to the Atlantic coast. For example, in Atlantic City (Fig. formerly tide-flowed lands.' 1), the state has claimed public rights in lands located For more than a decade, what is the appropriate between the 1852 high-water line and the present method of drawing the boundary between public and shoreline proposed for casino sites despite prior state private lands in the Hackensack Meadowlands near grants of those intervening lands.1� New York City has been in contention. While the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1980 upheld the state's novel use of a biological approach to delineating the line, A. Uplands many title questions in this marshy area remain.' Another controversial issue before the courts is Most New Jersey coastal zone uplands are privately whether the general public has the right to cross private owned, although they are subject to widespread lands to get to the ocean. The Garden State's highest regulation." tribunal has already acted to increase public beach access, holding that coastal communities must allow nonresidents and residents the same opportunity to use B. Tidelands municipally owned beaches? New Jersey was vested with title to tidelands, in trust for the public, upon becoming a state in 1776.1 Unlike TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN the colonial government of Massachusetts,"3 the pre- THE COASTAL ZONE Revolutionary authorities in what is now New Jersey had not made a blanket grant of tide-flowed lands into The New Jersey Coastal Management Program private ownership. defines the state's coastal zone to include the area from Nevertheless, a local common law or custom arose un- the outer limit of the territorial sea landward to "at least der which private upland owners were permitted to fill the first 100 feet inland from all tidal waters."6 It em- in and reclaim these lands, thus gaining title to and braces not only the Atlantic Ocean coast but the waters other rights in adjoining tidelands. This practice was recognized by the courts" and then codified in the �7 ...h.......h ............,,t ........ ........ .,,h,. Wharf Act of 1851 Although the act was repealed in two stages (in 1869 and 1891)," private parties obtained 3tal, t,[f het t,r (,n ~m,f h*,,a,twd ,~,n, u tiff etnl~hra., o, tb,,, Itll h'lre,,o! lall ],, tada b,,nndarlw169ad19 ate dt....,an .�a, Ah., ......../,,,bd ......deptiA a/ni nanhm .....,t, .di i.....,/rraI title if they had excluded the tidewaters before the of Ith411.on (,,rntfrea/. h ,,f(,ifman manlothtrae ~: ,1Jtbe. t . l � pP,,I, repeal.". (...A,, lh. a,,IA., .... ,"'.,lp, b,. Ih" lb. a,!,.,, .. ,h ....... In addition, the state has made many so-called APRIL 1982 9 "riparian grants"-conveyances of tide-flowed lands- locate mean high-water points in the marsh and survey- under the general Riparian Act of 1869.'8 About one- ing to connect those points into a mean high-water third of the state's Atlantic Ocean coast was conveyed line."30 into private ownership by riparian grants during the The court emphasized, however, that it was nil, 19th century and early 1900s.'9 Much of the Atlantic deciding what effect the state's claim maps would have City coastline was included in such grants.20 in later cases to determine title but was simply ruling Although most New Jersey tidelands are still publicly that the "maps represent a reasonable implementation owned, ownership of many coastal zone parcels, both in of the duty mandated" by the statute calling for surveys the meadowlands and along the ocean coast, is in doubt. of meadowlands.3' Consequently, as of this writing, it is In an effort to speed up the resolution of these title dis- still not certain whether the state's controversial putes, the voters approved a state constitutional amend- biological approach will be sufficient to prove the state's ment in the November 1981 election. The referendum title claims.32 was obviously prompted by the state's recent aggressive Interestingly, in some areas of tidal marsh near the assertion of sovereign title to or rights in lands, such as open coast, a cooperative project between the National those in portions of Atlantic City, that were historically Ocean Survey and the State of New jersey disclosed that tidelands but are not presently washed by the tides. a "botanical mean high-water line" was landward of the The 1981 constitutional amendment, which is expec- physical mean high-water line at some points and ted to promote casino development on these lands in seaward of it at other points.33 Atlantic City,2' provides that the state's rights in lands not tidally flowed in the past 40 years will be ex- tinguished unless the state defines and asserts claims B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location within one year of its passage.2 If private interests dis- of the Shoreline agree with the state's assertions, further litigation will of course follow to test those claims. In general, accretion and erosion result in a movement of the legal boundary between privately owned uplands and public tidelands in New Jersey.3' One decision ap- C. Submerged Lands plied this rule even where there had been accretion 200 feet seaward of the fixed exterior boundary of a 1915 New Jersey has title to submerged lands within a 3- state riparian grant of tide-covered lands to the then ad- geographical-mile belt along its Atlantic Ocean coast by joining private upland owner. The court stated that the virtue of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953?23 The state's owner had the right to "alluvion which might thereafter claim to the area between the 3-mile limit and the gradually and impreceptibly attach to the upland."35 seaward extent of the United States'jurisdiction was re- But NewJersey currently does not allow either the up- jected by the United States Supreme Court in 1975.24 land owner (without some state permit, license or grant) or the state to gain additional land by making artificial changes. As stated in the landmark O'Neill case: DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES "The State cannot acquire interior land by such ar- tificial works as ditching which enables the tide to ebb A. Upland/Tideland Boundary and flow on lands otherwise beyond it. And so too the riparian owner cannot, today, enlarge his holdings by In Oleill v. State highway Department,2" decided in excluding the tide."3" 1967, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated that the New Jersey's highest court has expressly refused to mean high-water line,which is the landward boundary of follow California's rule that artificially accreted land state-owned tidelands, is the intersection with the shore belongs to the state or its legislative grantee rather than of a tidal plane based on the mean of all the high tides the private upland owner.3' Nevertheless, two noted over an 18.6-year period. This decision is consistent with legal commentators say that "where artificial changes the United States Supreme Court's 1935 opinion in the exist, it is necessary to ascertain [the location of] the Borax case2 and the National Ocean Survey's method of mean high-tide line prior to the change in order to deter- defining the line of mean high water. Although the rule mine who owns the property."38 is clearcut, its application has proven troublesome, es- The state's claim to public rights in some portions of pecially in marsh and meadowland areas. Atlantic City's waterfront, ripe for casino development The O 'Neill decision contained this recommendation: because of the legalization of gambling, is based on the "As a matter of good housekeeping, . . . the State should contention that the high-water line moved seaward from do what is feasible to catalogue the State's far-flung its 1852 location due to unauthorized artificial fill. One [tide-flowed land] holdings,... "27 In response, the critic points out that many state riparian grants of tide- Legislature passed a statute requiring title studies and flowed lands were made to upland owners based on surveys of meadowlands."8 The resulting dispute over other, more seaward positions of the line.39 state claims to ownership of tide-flowed lands led to It has been reported that various casino companies, lengthy litigation over the state's method of delineating which needed state permits, paid the state a total of $5 the tidal boundary in certain areas. million in settlement of potential state claims rather In 1980, in City of Newark v. Natural Resource Council,29 than delaying their projects to litigate these questions.40 the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the state's "novel The 1981 constitutional amendment mentioned above,"4 technique of biological delineation instead of using the requiring the state to assert any claim it has to such traditional tidal mapping program of tide gauging to Atlantic City lands and other areas that have not been 10 SHORE AND BEACH Fig. 1. Hotels and casinos line the famed boardwalk at Atlantic City, site of a controversy over whether the public has rights in for- merly tide-flowed lands. (December 1981 photograph by Atlantic City Convention and Visitors Bureau.) tidally flowed in the past 40 years, should expedite the This opinion clearly shows the state Supreme Court's resolution of these boundary problems. liberal attitude toward the scope of the public trust doc- Much of N'ewJersey's coast is prone to severe erosion. trine: The state's Coastal Management Program. citing a 1977 "We have no difficultv in finding that, in this latter Rutgers University study. identifies 14 examples of high- half of the twentieth century, the public rights in tidal risk erosion areas.' The program calls for beach lands are not limited to the ancient prerogatives of nourishment projects and, while clearly favoring non- navigation and fishing. but extend as well to recreational structural solutions to shoreline erosion problems, con- uses, including bathing. swimming and other shore cedes that such structural solutions as jetties, groins, activities " seawalls and bulkheads "are appropriate and essential In 1978 the doctrine was further extended in a deci- at certain locations. given the existing pattern of ur- sion that the dr�-vand part of the beach landward of the banization of New Jersey's shoreline.""a mean high-tide line is subject to the public trust. The court ruled that the doctrine "requires that the municipally owned upland sand area adjacent to the NEW JERSEY'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE tidal waters must be open to all on equal terms and without preference,"" banning any discrimination In 1821 New Jersey's Supreme Court became one of against nonresidents of the community. the first tribunals to espouse the public trust doctrine." linder this concept, the public may use tidal waters for certain purposes regardless of whether the sovereign or private parties own the underlying lands. However, dur- PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS ing the second half of the 19th century, the court adop- ted a more restrictive application of the concept."' As demonstrated by the 1972 and 1978 decisions ap- Modern Nlew Jersey court decisions have expanded plying the public trust doctrine to prohibit discrimina- the public trust doctrine to include recreational use of tion against nonresidents wishing to use municipally ow- and pubilic access to sandy beaches. T'he 1972 Blromioh of ned beaches,49 the New Jersey Supreme Court has .\V/'ltuo (.il v. lruL.'i ,4 .1l'lv,.-l-thr-c-.Sra46 opinion states championed the cause of public access to these beaches that the pul lic trust doctrine bars a municipality fronm rather than waiting for legislative action. discriminating against nonresidents in lees charged for A more difficult legal question-public access to the the use of a muenic ipally owned btea ch. ocean across privately owned lands-is nows pending in APRIL 1982 11 the courts. The small resort of Bay Head, whose mile area in northeastern New .Jersev encompassing part privately owned beach is managed by a private improve- of the Hackensack River Estuary and related uplands.62 ment association, is the focus of litigation in which the In addition to the preparation, adoption and implemen- state's public advocate seeks to assure public access.50 tation of a master plan for the meadovlands," the com- Promotion of public access is one of the basic coastal mission has extensive authority over development and policies in the New Jersey Coastal Management redevelopment of the area,6' wvorking in conjunction with Program. It calls for linear access along the waterfront the Department of Environmental Protection.6S and more waterfront parks."5 The program also sets The Wetlands Act of 197066 applies to all coastal forth criteria to be considered by municipalities in wetlands in the Raritan River Basin, south along the developing additional beach access points, and describes Atlantic Ocean and north along Delaware Bay and techniques that may be used to provide access, including River.67 The act requires permits for such activities as the public trust doctrine, coastal permit review, capital draining, dredging. excavation, and removal of soil, mud. spending programs and a beach bus shuttle.52 sand and gravel.68 The act has been upheld by the courts.69 In 1973 the Legislature passed the Coastal Area PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) 7 This lakw authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection "to regulate Although littoral owners in New Jersey are entitled to and approve the location, design and construction of ma- the benefit of accretion not produced by their own jor facilities" throughout a 1,376-square-mile region em- actions,53 there seems to be a question whether they have bracing coastal resort areas and barrier beach islands."' the usual common-law rights of access to the adjoining Constitutionality of CAFRA has been upheld72 tide and submerged lands. In a 1968 decision, the state's The New Jersey Coastal Management Program,73 highest court flatly stated: "The existence of a valuable which is being implemented through the coordinated use [privatel property right of access, as such, has been of CAFRA and the other existing permit programs, was recognized elsewhere though not in New Jersey.""4 developed in two phases. The Federal Government ap- On the other hand, in an earlier case, dealing with the proved the Bay and Ocean Shore Segment in September rights of upland owners who had received state riparian 1978 and the entire statewide program in September grants bounded by state-fixed exterior lines (such as 1980. bulkhead and pierhead lines), the court said "such lines The program is administered by the l)ivsion of Coast- were to be established so as to delineate navigable waters al Resources in the Department of Environmental Pro- and that access to such waters was a primary considera- tection. The program emphasizes eight basic coastal tion and inherent purpose in grants of land flowed or for- policies, including the protection of the coastal eco- merly flowed by tidewater.'55 system, the concentration of development in certain areas and the preservation of open space elsewhere, and the maintenance and upgrading of energy facilities."4 A LEASING AND REGULATION detailed Shore Protection Master Plan Vwas pulblished in OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS October 1981. A. Leasing ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The state may lease tide-flowed lands either to adjoin- The author is grateful to John R. Weingart, chief. ing upland owners or to others upon notice to the Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development, and Neil owners.55 Yoskin, staff attorney, both of the Division of Coastal Resources, Department of Environmental Protection, State of New Jersey, for providing some of the source B. Regulatory Functions materials cited in this article. "In 1914 the INewJerseyl Legislature showed its first REFERENCES interest in regulating the land areas along tidal waters when it passed the Waterfront Development Law. "" The I .ew, 7erre Coastal tManagement Program and Final ints rmental Irn- law, as amended in 1975, requires prospective developers pact Statement hereinafter cited is NJCASIPI 2f1 .At\ust 1stl to obtain state approval of "[alll plans for the develop- T he tate's etire coastal orne iniltods .iltoojt 1.7'2 Imil's if ment of any water-front upon any navigable *waters or 2 ti n le on the .t ( t th stream . . . or bounding thereon, . . . [This law calls perspective of the private sector. se .lorenroth. "lhe (irat for approval for development of any kind, including (:asino Robbery or flow the State (;ot Ri her 1When ther ide "construction or alteration of a dock, wharf, pier, (:.me In," Title."ets, Vol. 58, No 12, I)ecember 1')7f) p ..- bulkhead, bridge, pipe line [andl cable."'s An appellate cording to the aricle, the state hases claims to pillir rights on an 18i52 high-water line that is more latndwardl than the present court held that the state is not liable for damages for shoreline and the lines used by the starte in so�-alled "riparian denying dredging and filling permits under this law to the grants" of tidelands into privale ow nership in the l'9rh )enturv holder of a state grant of tide-flowed lands.� 3. See "'title to l.ands WVithin the Coa(stal one," n/fra. The Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and 4 .o.;ted onlv (0 miles from midtotwn Mntihtlitaiin. the Il.mkeln- Development Act, approved in 1969,61 created the sack M le.dowands L)istri cn.tains 3 I sqn te re sli.r t e1 o bxpen- sive real es(ale. NICMIP. 5upra, note I. at 209 For a brief Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. descrilption of the sta;e-level regional sgetnc regulating the This state-level regional agency regulates a 31-square- meladowlands, see "I.easing and Regulatiln o, C(:.as.l Zone 12 SHORE AND BEACH I.rand. iand WVaTer,,." inra. As it, lli boundmyN delineation them outright, except in unusual cases." NJCMIP, supra, note iproblem,. in thle meadowlands. sec Ctt l .of uwarA .sahural 1, at 39. Resource C.ouncd. 82 N,. 5301. 414 A2d 13(1)4 (19'I) 19. NJCMP, supra, note 1, at 292 The state report notes these 5 l'a, .%*, v. H,rough o I)eal, 78 NJ. 174. 393 A.2d 571 (1978); ocean beach ownership percentages: private, 26%; municipal, Ith'r',ch f %'prun, (.Ctl v. Borough of Aton-hb.th.rfSea, 61 N.J. 296, 51%; state, 9.2%; and Federal Government, 13.4%. Id at 294- 294 A.2d 47 (1972) 295. A legal writer states that 70% if the state's l26-mile-long 6 N.JCMP, iupra, note 1. at 2(1. The zone extends as far as 24 "Atlantic Ocean coast from Sands Hook to Cape May Point is miles landward of the coastline in one county. Ibid. in some form of public ownership." (;Goldshore, 7rendi ti En. 7. Id. at 19-20 rironmental 1.itratron: A Sur'e, of l97 6 .eu .r er.ire .7udicral 8 In this series tidelands are defined as lands lying between the )Decriionm, 9 Rut.-Cam. L.J. 21, 3(1 (1977). lines of mean high and mean low water and submerged lands 20. Morgenroth, supra, note 2, at 9. 11. as land, lying seaward of the line of mean low water. In New 21. "Riparian Rights Change May Aid Adlanti City," N.Y'. Jerse) law and legal writings, however, the term "riparian Times, Nov. 8, 1981. p 16 lands" is often used to refer to tide-flowed lands. expecially 22. The new constitutional provision (art. 8, � 5) approved by the lands granted by the state into private ownership. Seman- voters reads: "No lands that were formerly tidal flowed, but tically, the use of this term, which more precisely means lands which have not been tidal flowed at any time for a period of 40 contiguous to a river, may cause some confusion; thus it is used years. shall be deemed riparian lands. or lands subject to a in this article only when essential. riparian claim, and the passage of that period shall be a good 9. As two critics of the state's claims contend:" . . [iln 1959 the and sufficient bar to any such claim, unless during that period State of New Jersey attempted to utili7e the tidelands doctrine the State has specifically defined and asserted such a claim to capture untold acreage of the marshes and meadowlands. pursuant to las. This section shall apply to lands which have This has caused intense turmoil, resulting in new and complex not been tidal flowed at any time during the 40 years im- problems . . D)ue to this attempted expansion of the doc- mediately preceding adoption of this amendment uaih respect to trine, hundreds of properties . . . have been taken and used for anl clarri not specfricalr defined and arierted bh the State u'lhin one state purposes without compensating the record owners ... ; ear of the adoptim of tthis ammendment." (Emphasis added.) prior homeowners of many years are being threatened with loss 23. 67 Star. 29; codified at 43 U.S.C. � 13(11 et req of title; prior grants and state deeds are being ignored; . " 24. lnritd State.s v. Marne, 420 U.S. 515, 517-518 (1975). Porro & Telelky. Malshland Title )lemma: A Tidal Phenomenon. 3 25. 50 NJ. 307. 323-324. 235 A.2d I, 9-10. Seton Hall L.Rev. 323, 325 (1972) (footnotes omitted). These 26. Bora.. I.td. v. (.'tit of L.os Anerls, 296 U.S 10 (1935) See Shore legal commentators. noting there are about 244,000 acres of and Beach,. Vol. 48, No 4. October 1980, pp 17-18, and Vol. 49, marshland in the state, underscore the difficulty of classifying No. 2, April 1981. p. 21. this land as either upland or tideland by differentiating bet- 27. 50 NJ. at 320. 235 A.2d at 8. ween "high marsh." located abote the mean high-tide line and 28. NJ S.A � 13:11B-13.2 covered by tidal waters during the spring and extraordinary 29. 82 NJ 3o). 414 A_2d 131W1 (1980(;acert. denied/ 441) 1US. 903 198(). tides, and "low marsh," lying besrlL the mean low-tide line, 30 82 N.J. at 535. 414 A.2d at 1306. The Natural Resource Coun- through an analysis of the marshland biota. Id. at 332-333. cil (NRC) of the Department of Environmental Protection These title disputes have arisen in part because of state claim (DEP), in mapping the state's claims in the Hackensack maps prepared pursuant to a coastal mapping law enacted af- Meadowlands, used this biological approach. The court said: ter a 1967 New Jersey Supreme Court decision spelling out "The NRC method involved an analysis of color infrared tidal boundary rules. See "I)etermination of Tidal Boun- photographs of the meadows. This procedure was premised on daries." itfra. the theory that there is a correlation between the various spec- 10. For a critical analysis of the state's Atlantic City claims, see tral reflectance patterns ofPhramite.r communis. a reedlike grass Morgenroth, supra,. note 2, at 9. The state has contended that which grows extensively in the Hackensack meadows, and the there was unauthorized fill beyond the 1852 line, which was extent of tidal inundation where the plants exist. Certain color substantially landward of the present shoreline. patterns are said to indicate areas which are regularly flowed 11. For a summary of some of the regulatory schemes, see "Leas- by the tide, while other patterns indicate areas not suspectible ing and Regulation of Coastal Zone Lands and Waters," infra. to tidal flow." Ibid. 12. hardSand & AlMaterials Co. v. Palmer, 51 N.J. 51, 54, 237 A.2d 31. 82 N.J. at 542, 414 A.2d at 1310. 619, 620 (1968). See also Shrel v. Bouilht, 152 U.S. 1, 14-15 32. As indicated above, the unresolved controversy over mean (1894); Martin v. iladdell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367, 408 (1842). high-water line boundary delineation techniques creates un- Before the American Revolution, the English Crown held such certainty as to titles in many marsh and meadowland areas. lands. In 1664 Charles II had granted his brother James, the Among early legal discussions of the complex boundary deter- duke of York, a large area, including what is presently New mination problem are Porro, Inmisible Boundary-Private and Jersey. Later, the Province of Nova Cassarea (New Jersey) was Sie'reion Marshland Interestsi, 3 Nat. Resources Law 512 (1970), granted to the proprietors, who in 1702 surrendered the powers and Porro & Teleky, supra, note 9, 3 Seton Hall L.Rev. at 323. of government to Queen Anne. Arnold v. Mundr, 6 NJ.L. I The attorney for the NewJersey Land Title Insurance Associa- (Sup.Ct. 1821); Schultz v. H'ilson, 44 N.J. Super. 591, 131 A.2d tion and other parties contesting the state's biological ap- 415 (App.I)iv. 1957). proach in City of .ueark v. Natural Resource Council, supra, 82 N.J. 13. For a brief description of the history of private ownership of 530, 414 A.2d 1304, wrote a detailed critique of the biological tidelands in Massachusetts, see the sixth article in this series, approach in an article published before the Supreme Court's Shore and Be ach. Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1982, pp. 13-15. 1980 decision in that case. See Weigel, "NewJersey's Tideland 14. (;ouh v. Bell, 22 N.J.L. 441 (Sup.Ct. 1850), aff'd 23 N.J.L. 624 Problem," Tztle .Nets, Vol. 58, No. 12. December 1979, p. 12. (E.&A. 1852). 33. See description of the project in Weigel. supra, note 32, at 17 n. 15. 1851 N.J. Laws. ch. 124. This statute and other early laws 32, which concludes: "The horizontal distance between the providing for private rights in tidelands are discussed in botanical mean high-water line and the physical mean high- Barrett, "Riparian Rights-A NewJersey Dilemma," Shore and water line at its extreme points is from -133 feet to +88 feet Beach,. Vol. 49, No. 4, October 1981, p. 32. (botanical mean high-water line inshore of physical mean 16. 1869 N.J. Laws, ch. 383; 1891 N.J. Laws, ch. 124. high-water line is considered +)." 17. Tidelands "acquired by a riparian [upland} owner pursuant to 34. Borough of W'ildwood Crest v. Aasciarella, 51 N.J. 352. 357, 240 the local custom prior to the effective date of the repealing A.2d 665, 667 (1968). statute... are securely held,.... " 'Vetill v. State Hzghwar 35. Id., 51 N.J. at 361, 240 A.2d at 670 The Supreme Court Deparlmrent, 50 N.J. 307, 325, 235 A.2d 1, 19 (1967) (footnote accepted the trial court's finding that the accretion was due to omitted). See also WardSand & l Materialr (.a. v. Palmer, supra, 51 a combination of natural and artificial causes. N.J. at 54, 237 A.2d at 621. 36. (0%'eill v. State lighwau, Department, supra, 50 N.J. at 324, 275 18. 1869 N.J. Laws, ch. 383. Present statutes provide for the con- A.2d at 10. This is a change from the local custom codified in veyance of tidelands subject to various limitations. N.J.S.A. � the Wharf Act of 1851 and disc ussed under "Title to Lands 12:3-5 et seq. However, "it is the present practice of the [state] Within the Coastal Zone," supra. only to license the use of [tide-flowed] lands, and not to grant 37. Borough of l'ildicrood ('rest v. /aciarealla, srupra, 51 N.J. at 360- APRIL 1982 13 361, 240 A.2d at 669. For a brief description of Ithe CalIi for nia i4 Id., 51 N.J. at 357. 240 A.2d at (6(7. rule, see the third article in this series, Shor? and Beeuh, Vol. 49). 55. Iialley* V. ("u,'n II "fIo Dion .4 Pl'lorwii~' 22 N.J .3t,6, 370), 1 26 No. 2, April 1981, p. 22. A.2d 189, 191 (1956). See also IJhilV v l)i,,l, N.J 363, 38. Porro & Teleky, Ompri, note 9, 3 ,Seton Hiall [..Rev, at 330 373, 1 17 A.2d 265, 27i) l5),Starting that (me saur 39). Nlorgenroth, vipra, note 2, at 9, 11, 42. sections on riparian lands reflect the thought thiat the selrv 40. ' Riparian Rights Change May Aid Atlantic City." N.Y. reason for grants of suhmerged lands is to allow the littoral o' Times, Nov. 8; 1981, p. 16. ner access to navigatble waters."'I'hi~srightofiii acess stems from 41. See "Title to Lands and W~aters Within the Coastal Zone," the local common law or custom that was codified in the subse- , tard quently repealed hafAtof 1851, discussed under "TIitle to 42. NJCMP, oipra, note 1, at 1(5. Lands Within the Coastal Zone,"' opra. See the first decision in 43. Id. at 2 12-214. For a critical commentary on New Jersey's the sequence of Buo/ev cases. Bo/les v. Iiri,,oll, 34 NJ. Super beach erosion control efforts, see Vaccaro, "New Jersey 228, 112 A.2d 3 (App.1)iv. 1955). Seashore-Ultimate Destruction or Salvation," Share anidBeath, 56. N.J.S.A. �� 12:3-il) el eq.. 12:3-23 et eq. Vol. 49, No. 4, October 1981, pp. 34-37. 57. INJCNIP, oipr, note 1, at 3; 1914 N~j. Laws, ch. 123. 44. In .lmrnoldl v. Muntidy, s/ira. 6 NJ.L. 1, 1 2 (3d ed. 1902), the state 58. N.J.S.A. � 12:5-3. ,Supreme Court's chief justice said: '. . . T~he navigable 59. 161d. rivers, where the tide ebbs and flows, the ports, the bays, the 60. In re Lioveladie l1,zr6,r, In-. 176 N.J. Super. 0i), 422 .\.2d 107 coasts of the sea, including both the water and the land under (App.Div. 198))). the water, for the purposes of passing and repassing, naviga- 61. N.J.S.A. � 13:17-1 el ieal. In conjunction with this act, the tion, fishing, fowling, sustenance, and all the other uses of the Legislature mandated a state agency "to undertake title water and its products . .. are common to all the people, and studies and surveys of meadowlands throughout the State atsd that each has a right to use them according to his pleasure, to determine and certify those lands which it finds are State subject only to the laws which regulate that use. ....For an owned lands." N.J.S.A. � 13:11B-13.2. See 'iDetermination of exhaustive discussion of Arnold and the public trust doctrine, 'Tidal Boundaries," is/ira. see Note, Slale Ciltzer? Rwhbs Re~peiiing Greeilticater Re~iosr~e.11/sea- 62 . NJC.NP, supra, note I, at 31. lion: brom Rome Ii Se jerieyt 5RtesLRv 7.6 . 63. N.J.S.A. �� 13:17-0(i), 13:17-9 el veq. The master plan was 11971). adopted in 1972 and revised in 1977, 1978 and 197 9. NJCNIP, 45 .Note, )upra, note 44, at 65-7-665. m~pra, note I. at 42. 46. 61 N.J. 296. 294 A.2d 47 (1972). See Jaffee, The P`0lir Trnvt 64. See, eg., N.j.S.A. �� 13:1-7-6 (k), (r), 13:17-13, 13:17-14. Doctrine It Alive andlkickmrng in .Nec,.7erieV Tidalutiater:.N.eptiine (.'Ity 65 . NJCMP. vip/ra, note 1, at 42. i. .-1on-hs-lheYea---A (fave of Hupp. . lviarc', 14 Nat. Resources 66. N.J.S.A. � 1 3:9A-l el eq. For discussions of this act, see J. 3(09 (1974); Note, 26 Rutgers L.Rev. 179 (1972); Note, 42 Clayton, "Werland Regulation in New Jersey." Title Amvci Cin L.Rev. 554 (1973); Goldshore, usipra, note 19, at 30-32. Vol. 58, No. 12. lDecember 19719, P. 19; Goldshore, 'ia/ra, note 47. 61 N.J. at 309, 294 A.2d at 54. 19, at 24-25. 48. Ian .\e~i v. 11,rws4h of Deal. vspra. 78 N.J. 174, 179, 393 A.2d 67. N.J.S.A. � 13:9A.-2. 571, 573. The court expressly limited its opinion to municipally' 68. N.J.S.A.V � I 3:9A-4. owned open beaches. slating that it was "not called upon to 69. In re logreladieu Iliarh,,r, Inc . s/ipa. 1716 N.J. Super. 69, 422 A.2d deal with beaches on which permanent improvements may 107; .lineicnanIrcdin (C. v. .atae 'f.'ieu7.rur, 161 N.j. Super. have been built, or beaches as to which a claim of private ow- 51)4, 391 A.2d 1265 (Clh.Div. 1978), iiftd 169) N.J. Super. IS, nership is asserted." Ibid. 404 A.2d 42 (App.Div. 1979). 49. Ii'irafi~h 'if.\epittae (ifs v. Borosgh of .lon-by-the-yea. s/ipra, 61 N.J. 70. N.J.S.A. � 13:19-1 eI seql. Fur a discussion of this act, see 296. 294 A.2d 47; lmzn.\ciu v. 13,,rirsa of I)cal. Othira. 78 N.J. 174. Goldshore. s/ira, note 19, at 26-28. 393 .A.2d 571. See "Newjersey's Public Trust Doctrine." up/ra. 71. NJCMNP. 's/ra. note 1. at 32-37. 5(0. Weigel, 'nipra, note 32. at 16 n. 8. Since that article was written, 72. Tonic River Ifll~iatcs V. IDcpartmnent of Emtrwinernenal Pr,'eiosn. 14(1 a trial court ruled that the state's effort to open the beach to the N.J. Super. 135, 355 A.2d 679 (App.Div. 19716). crl. den. 71 general public amounted to at physical invasion of private N.J. 345, 364 A.2d 1(177 (1976). property without the payment of just compensation. An appeal 73. The program was prepared pursuant to the federal Ccastal is pending. Zone Management Act iif li)72, 16 U.S.C. � 1451 cel eq. 5I. N'JCkI P is/ira. note 1, at It. 74. NJCMNP, upa, note 1, at 10-12. 5-I2. tel at 294-301)1. 53. lorsg~h of It iblda d (rest v . Mlasciairella, up/ra, 5 I N.J. 352, 359- 360, 240 A.2d 665, 668.6710. 14 SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part VIII: The Oregon Approach B3 l' l I. (;i t.\i,,i-R Qffice af the .I Itborney Gneral, Slate of (.'ahlifrnia .S'an Francsco. (CailJrnia L .xF11. Ix 1805 the Lewis and Clark Expedition first ington border on the north to California on the south, L sighted the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the seaward to the extent of state jurisdiction as recognized Columbia River. Before starting their returnjour- in federal law, and inland to the crest of the coastal ney, the party spent a cold, wet winter at a camp called mountain range."' These coastal zone lands may be Fort Clatsop on what is now the Oregon side of the divided into uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.e Columbia. From the mouth of the Columbia, Oregon's scenic A. Uplands coastline stretches about 360 miles south along the Pacific.' Although the Lewis and Clark Expedition Most of Oregon's coastal zone uplands are privately helped encourage the settlement of the Pacific North- owned, with titles originating in Federal Government west, much of the state's coast remains undeveloped. grants. But, as the state's highest court pointed out, the Unspoiled pocket beaches are separated by rugged strip of littoral lands seaward of the line of vegetation,7 headlands, such as Cape Blanco (Fig. 1). The forest-clad commonly called the dry-sand area, historically has Coast Range rises behind one of the least commer- been assumed to be "public property" by both the cialized and industrialized seashores in the nation. general public and the private landowners.8 In 1966, more than a century and a half after the In fact, this assumption seems to be one of the under- Lewis and Clark Expedition, an incident occurred about pinnings for the court's controversial 1969 decision in 30 miles downcoast from Fort Clatsop that dramatically State ex rel. Thornton v. fla.9 Resurrecting the ancient affected Oregon's contemporary legal approach to the English legal doctrine of custom, the court said that the coast. William G. Hay and his wife, owners of a motel in public has a recreational easement in privately owned Cannon Beach, fenced off part of the dry-sand area of uplands between the vegetation line and the mean high- the beach near the motel for the exclusive use of their tide line.'� guests. In addition to those public rights to use the dry-sand That action triggered both the enactment of the 1967 area that may exist under the Thornton decision," private Beach Law2 declaring the public's rights to use the coast upland ownership is subject to various state regula- seaward of the "vegetation line"3 and a landmark 1969 tions.i Oregon Supreme Court decision' barring the Hays from enclosing the dry-sand area in front of their motel. The Beach Law and the court's ruling exemplify the B. Tidelands Beaver State's subordination of private rights to the On Februar 14, 1859, upon its admission to the Un- s *1 s r t s s t . .s C~~~n February 14, 1859, upon its admission to the Un- general public's use of the dry-sand beach. A similar ion, Oregon became the owner of the tidelands within its concern over controlling development along the coast is borders,' with the same sovereignty and itin rag a. s r t ro s . h~~~~~orders,~ with the same sovereignty and _jurisdiction reflected in the fact that Oregon was the second state in thei o nthaveafeerallypro d cl over these lands as the original states under the equal- the Union to have a federally approved coastal zone . . To management program. footing doctrine." The state still owns most of the tidelands along its Pacific Ocean coast. TITLE TO LANiDS WITHIN Some early Oregon laws permitted the sale of THE COASTAL ZONE tidelands into private ownership,'s but since 1947 state agencies have, in general, been prohibited from convey- The Oregon Coastal Management Program defies ing such lands." the state's coastal zone as extending "from the Wash- Current statutory law declares that, excluding -t. MI, h...,.,., .....I..., , h.e.........4,.,,. .......', ........... tidelands sold before 1947, "the shore of the Pacific n j2,j?22g...... . . !. fPl,. ht.!he h.,... . . . . ...... th.e.. 'i, . Ocean between ordinary high tide and extreme low tide, [I..~ ,-- ,B e n.q.tng thff . ,Pq.l{ .:/: ,tr� ~t',tZ. Ei t ,' Int llzn ~ram lUp ,ln ln_/�*tplh ,lnfll 1 l a! mal ny .1/ thtlt e opi, i ,oit ,., : .... ... i ,' ........./I...,.t h 1- pr- r, , . d ti a . .,d th O,, t,,,,.. .. ... and from the (O)regon and Washington state line on the lrln zAT t!hrn (euhe ,l,, tlna I tnt i, ,1h i north to the Oregon and California line on the south" ~t~tt ,I ,tttmr~ ' 'iiJ I, Ii.'. I I" (,r,,e. ,the ,rothato ,Ilia aC~rt, rop�rtq prieli'otn for the is , ,,.,i ....S ,o ..... constitutes a "state recreation area."'" In earlier laws, 16 SHORE AND BEACH R - ~~~~~~~~~~~_4 re Fig. 1: Aerial view of Cape Bianco, Oregon. This headland is one of the mnost westerly points in the contiguous United States. (Photograph courtesy of the Water Resources Center Archives, University of California, Berkeley.) (luli niz front I M')9 the oeecln shore had been dleclared a States -Supremne Court's 1935 B'ozc role.2' Under that piiltln highwa\ '~~~~~~~~ rule, the nmean of all thc high wvaters over anl 18.6-year tidal cv(le is uised as aI tidal datum. (.Submerged Lands The state courts have been less, p~recise in defining the I heSo Iei l'rLi'd ~a ns Xc c f 19 3~ otfimed upland/tideland bouttndary. For example. in 1959 If~~c Sl~bruer'-wd Lands Act~(d 1)3 wfre retgon's hig-hest court. cit ing many decisions that the ()iicon)s titIvle stufm('ried I aid,, wvithin it a3- staite "up~on its admissioninito the ujnion acqluired title to ci'ol.raiihi( al-nilic strip inl the P~aeifi ( )ceari thec Inreshore that then lav betsseen the ordinary high and low% water tnarks,'' defined tidelands as "lands usu~ally or ordinarily uemerecl ;in(I uncovered every 24 IDETLIININATIONN OFTII)AL BOUND)ARIES hoots by the action of the( uides,"2" without referring to anyv tidal datum.Jn A. U pland /T'idulancl Boundary HJowever, despite some la(ck of c larity in the case law as lo the precise method of locating lthe upland/tideland it en ( re'onstt tto ' la rfer t te lneof it'- boundary for puorposes of determr-ining ownership of Ii nry i gi ti d'' s te ltndardboudar OfSt ite lirler , ( )regon has aI definite I inev demarcating the teIId ttllnd "Admt ntstrat ivelv. the Div)iXsion of dry-sand area thiat may hvt sub ject to publ ic use and in Stat I atcs eqate ths satutry ern wit th lie ~ which privale' littoral wnr'rights are limited."5 As a tciatt high Awate as dehtu'(l fhs the National ( )-ean Sur- result of the( 1907 Beach IL~aw27 and the 1969 Thornton vex,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~v tltt' ibiaioscitn harts1nis(n deision,25 ( oticri(t.tttt pufldii rights, inl the dry-sand area, ss tt h~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ttIprI(- 2 h vegetat ion li' Ih~ I;as~ssottied inureasing importance. )I-eLotlfr, ll~s hd liIN ttle'ri tt aprLlI't( ease lasN otII 'I'll( location of tihi, litie, diefined Iby statute and surveyed tIIl.I hmoicll(irie's,2 hult al 107 f e'ei'al I~ot' des1- 151(.(1si1 ge-tterally at ati vlisat lit )ofIf fe' ect, is subject to tiotes t hit hoitIll Sth IN.An(it-' Itll the ift is ate nrif. inthe PIt ol( distt't litgaton tt hate ourt aetiud to tru ogtid;,' the. Ulitt'd JULY 1982 17 B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location an alternative holding to its principal ruling, the state's of the Shoreline highest court said that "the artificial c(hange in the con- tour of the left bank could be treated as an avulsion, and Generally. Oregon follovws the usual rule that the legal that if it were an avulsion the state would not acquire ti- houndary between uplands and tidelands shifts with alc- tie by virtue of the halnge." 32 cretion and erosion as distinguished from avulsion.31 Erosion constitutes "a major hazard along the ()regon In litigation between the state and a private upland coastline," according to a recent state report." The 1978 owner, what is the legal effect of artificial changes in the amendments to the ()regon Coastal anagement shoreline caused by the owner? In one case, a riparian Program summarize the implementation of comprehen- owner dredged a perpendicular bank of a tidal river, sive erosion management policies by state and local creating a more gradual slope. The result: a narrow strip governments.34 of tidelands was formed in a previously' upland area. In Shoreline Changes. A Legal Lexicon Like oceanographers and coastal engineers, The courts apply the same test of "impercep- legislators and judges recognize that coastal tibility" to determine whether erosion has oc- processes change the physical location of the curred. Generally, property boundaries change shoreline. But some of the legal terminology used with erosion, the upland owner losing title to the in statutes and court decisions to distinguish be- previously dry land. tween the kinds of changes may confuse readers of "The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell." To help non-attorneys understand how the law classifies shoreline changes, here are brief defini- Reliction (sometimes spelled "dereliction") is tions of some key legal terms. the gradual recession of water formerly covering land, leaving dry land. The practical effect thus is ACCRETION the same as in accretion and the same rule applies as to property boundary changes. Accretion is the gradual, imperceptible addition to The terms "accretion" and "alluvion" are littoral or riparian land of solid material by water. sometimes used interchangeably with the word The result, of course, is that dry land forms in an "reliction." area previously covered by water and the shoreline moves seaward. What does the law mean by "imperceptible"? The United States Supreme Court in 1874 said Subergence, the converse of rection, denotes that the legal test of "imperceptibility" is "that Submergence, the converse of rela tion, denotes the gradual disappearance of land under water and though the witnesses may see from time to time the formation of a navigable body of water over it. what progress has been made, they could not per- Consequently, the effect is the same as in erosion. ceive it while the process was going on." The manner in which the sand, sediment or other material is deposited, not the extent of the land gained, is the critical factor. The accreted land is termed alluvlion (sometimes Avulsion refers to rtoldden, perceptible changes in spelled "alluvium"). Although the word "allu- the shoreline or the bed of a river. vion" refers to the deposit, while "accretion" more The law generally treats avulsive changes dif- precisely denotes the process, the two terms are of- ferently from the slower processes of accretion, ero- ~ten used synonymously.~ sion, reliction and submergence. In some jurisdic- In general, property boundaries change with ac- tions, artificial filling by an upland owner is deemed cretion and the upland owner gains title to the to be the same as an avulsion. newly formed land. Some jurisdictions, however Physically, avulsive changes may result in either follow this rule only when the accretion is due en- a gain or loss of littoral or riparian land. Iowever, tirely to natural causes. the law generally freezes the location of the property boundary where it was before the avul- sion. EROSION Most avulsion cases involve violent alterations in rivers, but rapid coastal changes caused by earth- Erosion, the converse of accretion, is the gradual, quakes, hurricanes or similar severe natural imperceptible wearing away of littoral or riparian phenomena may be characterized as avulsive. land. As a result, the shoreline moves landward. �1982-Peter H. F. Graber 18 SHORE AND BEACH Although not a boundary case, one recent decision is The Beach Law's constitutionality has been upheld noteworthy. In this litigation. the plaintiffs discovered by both state"� and federal"1 courts. severe erosion probtlems after entering into a 99-year Since passage of the Beach Law. it has been the State lease of beachfront property. The court. in a decision of Oregon's goal to provide public beach access sites "at deplarting, from the traditional carni! em/tl, ("let the intervals between 1 12 to 3 miles. or to major areas inac- Iuver bewarce) approach. ruled that a land developer cessible from other access points because of intervening can be held liable for negligence if he fails to exercise promontories or other barriers."" reasonable cart to ascertain whether homesites offered The Beach Law contemplates the creation of public foi long-term lease or sale mav be subject to such erosion rights or easements in privately owned uplands below and unfit for residential use.as the vegetation line through the legal concepts of dedica- tion and prescription. However. as already pointed out. the Oregon Supreme Court's 1969 decision in .S'tat ef rel. OREGON'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE 7hnrnt,,n v. I/)y3 reflects a novel application of the venerable doctrine of custom to assure public access to Unlike courts in California.,6 Florida3' and Nerw the beach. Jersey.38 the Oregon Supreme Court has relatively At common law, seven requirements had to be narrowly applied the public trust doctrine to tidelands fulfilled before a custom could be recognized as law.' and adjoining uplands.38 The Oregon court in Thornton deftly parried the first The court held in 1979 in .Mtorve v. Oregon D)iision of requirement-that the custom must be ancient- by Staot Land.'� that this doctrine does not prevent landfills modifying the English law to adapt it to this country and in estuaries for nonwater-related public uses. The case by crediting the Indians with using the dry-sand area involved a permit to fill 32 acres of Coos Bay for an air- before Oregon was settled by Europeans. In England the port runway extension. After the M.orse decision, the fill test of what is ancient is a use so long established "that and removal statute was amended to codify the court's the memory of man runneth not to the contrary"; that in interpretation of the public trust doctrine.' turn is interpreted as meaning the custom must have There is language in .\More that could be construed as begun before the coronation of Richard I in 1189.s6 The indicating that Oregon's public trust doctrine does not Oregon court overcame this apparent hurdle by rephras- encompass all recreational use of tidelands. The court ing the English test: suggested that "very casual navigation of the recrea- " ... This case deals solely with the dry-sand tional kind"'2 would not be a sufficient public use of the area of the Pacific shore, and this land has been bay's waters on which to base denial of a fill permit ap- used by the public as public recreational land ac- plication. cording to an unbroken custom running back in Despite this language, it would seem likely that future time as long as the land has been inhabited. Oregon decisions involving coastal tidelands will adopt " . . So long as there has been an institu- the more liberal approach reflected in cases relying on tionalized system of land tenure in Oregon. the the public trust concept to uphold public recreational public has freely exercised the right to use the dry- use of lakes and rivers.' sand area up and down the Oregon coast for ... recreational purposes .... PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS " ... If antiquity were the sole test of validity of a custom, Oregonians could satisfy that require- Oregon's legislators and courts have actively en- ment by recalling that the European settlers were couraged public beach access through the enactment of not the first people to use the dry-sand area as the 1967 Beach Law" and decisions such as State ex rel. public land.""6 Thornton v. Ha1 46 By invoking the historic concept of custom, the court State coastal access publications call the Beach Law clearly was seeking to assure the public right of access to "the central law establishing public rights to dry sand tidelands while avoiding the case-by-case, parcel-by- beaches of the ocean shore .. "4 and assert that parcel approach necessary under the implied dedication " Ialthough only approximately half of the Ocean Shore doctrine sanctioned by California" and Texas68 courts. area'" is in public ownership, all of it is open to pthblic access The Thornton decision cites with approval the hb statute . . '48 language in the Beach Law codifying "a policy favoring In the Beach Law, the Legislative Assembly expressly the acquisition of public recreational easements in beach declares that it is Oregon's public policy to lands,""9 but states that "it is unlikely that the landown- " . . forever preserve and maintain the sovereign- ers thought they had anything to dedicate, until 1967, ty of the state ... over the ocean shore of the state when the notoriety of legislative debates about the from the Columbia River on the north to the public's rights in the dry-sand area sent a number of Oregon-California line on the south so that the ocean-front landowners to the offices of their legal public may have the free and uninterrupted use advisers.""" thereof... land where the public's use of the Although the Thornton case involved only one parcel, ocean shore] has been legally sufficient to create the geographic scope of the ruling is not clear. The deci- rights or easements in the public . . . ,that it is in sion arguably could be construed as applicable to the the public interest to protect and preserve such dry-sand portion of all of Oregon's beaches because of public rights or easements as a permanent part of the court's statement that " locean-front lands from the Oregon's recreational resources."'8 northern to the southern border of the state ought to be JULY 1982 19 Moreover, the Beach Law provides, in general, that anyone wishing to build an "improvement "" seaward of the vegetation line must apply for and obtain a state permit.r7 This requirement is based on a legislative finding that such control is necessary The New Jersey Approach" "to protect the state recreation areas ..., to protect the safety of the public using such ,areas, In the last article in this series, "The Law of the Coast and to preserve values adjacent to and adjoining in a Clamshell: Part VII: The New Jersey Approach," such areas, the natural beauty of the ocean shore .Shre & Beach, Vol. 50, No. 2, April 1982, pp. 9-14, one and the public recreational benefit derived there- of' the references contained an error. from... "68 Page 13, note 9. 17th line, should read as follows: The Parks and Recreation Division administers the per- tides, and "low marsh," lying helwrti the mean high-tide mit procedure."9 line and abo,;e the mean low-tide line, As corrected, therefore, the complete sentence and citation, referring to a discussion of marshland classifi- LEASING AND REGULATION cation in a law review article by Porro & Teleky, OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS .lMirrshland Title Dilemma: A4 Tidal Phenomenon, 3 Seton Hall L. Rev. 323 (1972), should read as follows: These legal commentators, noting there are about A. Leasing 244,000 acres of marshland in the state, underscore the difficulty of classifying this land as either upland or The Division of State Lands is empowered to lease tideland by differentiating between "high marsh," state-owned tide and submerged lands for various pur- located above the mean high-tide line and covered by located abover the mean high-tide line and covered by poses, including the exploration and production of oil, tidal waters during the spring and extraordinary tides, poses, cluding the exploration and production of oil, and "low marsh," lying belowe the mean high-tide line gas and other minerals.7 In one interesting case arising and above the mean low-tide line. through an analysis out of a state lease of tidelands surrounding an island in of the marshland biota. Id. at 332-333. a tidal river, the Oregon Supreme Court said that the lessee rather than the owner of the island would have the right to drive pilings below the low-water mark and to moor logs in the water."1 B. Regulatory Functions treated uniformly."6" However. such a sweeping applica- Use of coastal zone lands. particularly seaward of the tion would seem to raise serious constitutional questions vegetation line, is highly regulated in Oregon. In addi- as well as running counter to some of the elements of the tion to the permits for improvements required under the traditional concept of customary rights. Beach Law,'2 state permits must be obtained before When beach access cannot be obtained through such dredging in and Filling navigable waters, including legal theories as custom, implied dedication or prescrip- waters beneath tide and submerged lands.73 tion, the Beach Law empowers the state's Department of Comprehensive land-use planning in the coastal zone Transportation to "acquire ownership of or interests in had its roots in a 1971 statute creating the Oregon the ocean shore or lands abutting, adjacent or con- Coastal Conservation and Development Commission.7" tiguous to the ocean shore ... for state recreation areas The commission was directed to prepare a proposed or access to such areas where such lands are in private plan to preserve and develop coastal zone resources. ownership."62 In 1973 legislators passed the Land Use Planning Act calling for state and local agencies to adopt comprehen- sive plans."7 This law established the Department of PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS Land Conservation and Development,'6 which was re- quired to draw up statewide goals and guidelines for Generally, private upland owners in Oregon have the use by state and local governments preparing, adopting usual littoral rights of access to the waters beneath the and amending comprehensive plans.77 The act also adjoining tide and submerged lands, but it appears they created the Land Conservation and Development must now share these rights with members of the public. Commission," which was mandated to approve these As recently as 1956, it was held that a private upland goals and guidelines. Specific adopted goals relate to es- owner enjoyed a right different from that of the public, a tuarine areas, tide, marsh and wetland areas, and common-law "'property right [of access to the adjoin- beaches and dunes.7' ing watersl analogous to an abutting owner's right of In IMay 1977 the Oregon Coastal Management access to a highway .... . "e However, the 1967 Beach Program became the second such program in the United Law64 contains a legislative declaration that the dry- States to gain federal approval.6 The program, which sand area seaward of the vegetation line may be subject was amended in 1978, is administered by the Depart- to a public recreational easement, and the Oregon ment of Land Conservation and Development. Under Supreme Court's 1969 Thornton decision"s arguably can this program, local comprehensive plans, which must be construed as holding that there is such an easement meet the statewide goals established pursuant to the along the entire coast under the doctrine of custom. Land Use Planning Act, are being developed."1 20 SHORE AND BEACH ACKNOWVLEI)D;GMENTS case law has not fully clarified that point. See noti (61. ,,,,' arnd accompanying text. 12. See "Private Littoral Rights" and "Leasing and Regulation of Thc author is gratelul to Richard L. Mathews,ee Coastal Zone Lands and Waters," fral prosgranm division manager, I)cpartmcnt of Land Con- 13 M..iu, Bulhi, 152 U.S. 1,49.50(1804): Act for the Admission of servation and ])evelopmeni, and Stain Hamilton, assis- ()ren Into the Union. 11 Stat 383 In Sh.%rl), the United States Iani director. ned Perr. Lunlev. endineerin technician, Supree Court stated: "The title of the United Stairtes i, to (recn I~~so fS~l�twa,I sa;, founded upon original discover- and actual settlement liv iDivision of State Lands. Slalt' of Oregon, (or providing~ iteioens of the United States ... as well as upon the ression ofI the some of the source material cited in this artitlcl. I.ouisian; Territory by France in the treaty of 1801. and the renun, iation of the claims of Spain in the treaty of 181'). . 152 L'S a;I 5( The state was carved out of the Oregon Territory 14. For a brief dis ussion of the equal-footine doctrine. see hr first ar- REFERENCES tic le in this seriesh.3,b, & Reach,. Vol 48. No 4. October 198'%. Jill 15-16. I The Tidelands Sales Art of 1172. 1872 Or. Laws 129. authori7ed ~A r~ce~nt but utin~dat ed rep~ort enild unsale, of tidellands, of hys. harbors and inlets along the seat (anst. PiIm,,,.,.. P,, lhiereinahiet ((ted ahs .,%.etr,'! A.',c(,], prepared for and by an 1874 armicndment. 1874 Or. Laws 7'7. convevancs of the O(regon D)epiartment of Lattd Conservation and D)elopntenr 'an land abuitline or fronting upon or bounded by the shore tof bN Economic C;onsultants ()regon. Lid, in cooperation with the the Pacifi cen were rtted For a deailed diussion of the Pacific Ocean" w,,ere permitted. For a detaileddiusanf state 5siepartnient of Transportation. sates:"Aboul 72 percent or these laws. see Mclennan. upraa. note 4.4 Env. L. at 345-346. For 262 miles of the 361.9 miles of Oregon coast is usable beach of current law. sec Or. Re%. Stat. � 274.041(2). which 29 percent (7(6.3 miles) is in state ownership. In addition. 1b. Ch. 493, 1947 Or. Laws 847. This statute also purports to "vest in 52.2 miles. or 52 percent of the headlands are owned by the state" the State ownership of the shore Ibetween the lines of ordinary bt. al 24. 1(1.d~~~~~~~~~~ at 24. ~high and extreme low tide] excepting such portion or portions as 2 This law is sometimes referred to as the "Beach Bill."The original mav have heretofore been disposed of by the State." As one com- law-. Ch. b6I, 1967 Or Laws 1448, was amended by Ch. 601. mentator correctly points out: "Since ownership of the shore un- 1969 Or. Laws 137(t Currently. the law is codified at Or. Rev. derIving tidal waters was clearly with the state, subject to divest- Stat. � 39(1.6(15 et eq. For a brief discussion of the law, see "Public ment after statehood, it is unclear what was added or intended by Access Rights" and "Private Littoral Rights." infra the declaration that the lands were 'vested.' " Mcl.ennan, supra. 3 For a discussion of the definition of this line. see note 7, miafr. note 4.4 Env. L. at 347 n. 240. A 1965 statute qualifies the pIrohibi- 4. anlt ,x rel 7h,,rntin lint. 254 ()r. 584, 462 P.2d 671 (1969). For a tion against sale by adding "except as provided by law." Ch 368. brief discussion of this decision. see "Title to Lands Within the 1965 Or. Iaws 764. Current law authorizes the sale of tidelands in Coastal Zone" and "Public Access Rights." ynho For a detailed limited situations. See Or. Rev. Stat � 2'74.04((2). description of the events leading to the passage of the Beach Law 17 Or. Rev. Stat. 390.615. and the 7hmrun case, see McLennan, ibh/, Patrimony: An .4t,praisal 18. An 1899 law. 18(99 Or. Laws 3. applied only to the Pacific shore 'if I.cilntnn a'id (.mroni'n Iai 1'rotectn' Recreatuional Ia'alu. in (origon's from the Columbia River to the southern boundary of Clatsop ta,-0ipnrd Land, and l'aleT., 4 Env. L. 31', 356-364 (1974). County. the state's most northwesterly county. The land involsed 5. I,,,n (.nratl MlanagIement PI' rorm [hereinafter referred to as in Slot x rd. 7Tsoancn v. It0. supra. 254 Or 584, 462 P.2d 671, was OCMIPj IS (1976). There are three exceptions to this general located in Clatsop County, and the court cited this statute in its description of the coastal zone; in the Umpqua River Basin, the opinion. In 1913 the entire coast from the Columbia to the Califor- Rogue River Basin and the Columbia River Basin, specific nia border was designated as a public highway. Ch. 47, 1913 Or. geographic limits are designated. Ibid The zone "ranges in width, Laws 80. For a discussion of these laws and later statutes enacted excluding the territorial sea, from about 8 to 45 miles, and it in- before the 1967 Beach Law. see McLennan. suero, note 4,4 Env.L. eludes about 7811 square miles of land area." Id. at 16. at 346-348. 6. This classification is used for convenience and consistency with 19, 67 Stat. 29; codified at 43 U.S.C. � 13(11 et seq other articles in this series. However, Oregon law sometimes uses 20. Or. Rev. Stat. � 390.615. This statute states that "'ojwnershii, ,of the term srbmeroiblr lands as a synonym for tidelands. For example, the shore of the Pacific ()cean between ordmnar high tide and extrerme in Chapter 274 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, "submersible low tide.... Ibetween the Washineton and California borders. tx- lands" are defined as "lands lying between the line of ordinary cept for portions disposed of betfore July 5. 194";j is vested in the high water and the line of ordinary low water of all navigable State of Oregon. and is declared to be a state recreational waters and all islands, shore lands or other such lands held by or area.... (Emphasis added.) A statute drfines "suhmersilbc granted to the state by virtue of her sovereignty, . . . whether such lands.'' whether tidal or nontidal. ;ia, "lvin between the line of waters or lands are tidal or nontidal." Or Rev. Stat. � 274.005(8). ordinary high water and the line of ordmnar- low water. "O()r Re Stat. See also Or. Rev. Stat. � 274.705(7). defining "tidal submersible � 274.005(8). (Emphasis added.) .se note 6. supra. lands" as "lands lying below the line of mean low tide in the beds 21. Or. Adm. Rule 141.82-005; telephone conversations on April 12. of all tidal waters." 1982, with Stan Hamilton and Perry Lumley. Division of State 7. This line is now statutorily established and described according to Lands, State of Oregon. See also Shnrnfront Access, ni/,ra, note I, at the Oregon Coordinate System. Or. Rev. Stat. � 390.770. In 78; Oregnn Coastal Manaernernt PIrrarom Am.nmmdmrent. [hereinafter general. the statutory line, as mapped. approximates the edge of referred to as OCMP Am.], App. B (September 1978). Each vegetation and is at an elevation of 16 feet above the National publication contains a profile depicting a tidal datum with the Geodetic Vertical Datum. (The statute, however, refers to the for- label "Ordinary High Tide or M.H.W." at an elevation of 7.62 mer nomenclature of this datum: "Sea-Level I)atum of 1929." Or. feet above the mean lower-low-water datum. Although the Re-. Stat. � 390.76(0.) 'Shreirmn ,4ccei.i, sutra. note 1. at 2-3. In areas publications do not expressly state that the elevation of mean high of headlands and estuaries. a lower elevation is used. Or. Rev. water is based on NOS data, the relationship between that eleva- Stat. � 39( 760. tion and the plane of reference for nautical charts shows the use of 8. Staite e eel. ThorInton v. ha., rproa. 254 Or. 584. 589, 462 P.2d 671, NOS data. 674. 22. In a recent appellate court decision, a surveyor's meander line 9. 254 Or. 584. 462 P.2d 671. For a further discussion of this decision, description was held to control over the mean high-tide line in see "Publi Access Rights." tnfra. determining the landward boundary of tidelands because the 10. 254 Or. at 587-595. 462 P.2d at 676-678 The court defined the evidence showed an intention to use the meander line. G. . KWAr "vegetation line" as "the seaward edge of vegetation where the up- Co. v. Port of .3etporl, 40 Or. App. 49. 594 P.2d 845 (1979). land supports vegetation." and, for purposes of its decision, However, this is not the usual rule in Oregon; the natural monu- treated that line as identical with the 16-foot-elevation contour line ment generally prevails over the meander line. (an engineering line discussed in note 7, supin) and with "[t]he ex- 23. Ha- v. Bruno, 344 F. Supp. 286, 287 (D. Or. 1972). treme high-tide line and the high-water mark " Ibid. 24. Borax, Ltd. v. C, y of L.i Angeles. 296 U.S. 10 (1935). See Shore & 11. As is discussed under "Public Access Rights." infra, the Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4, October 198(), pp 17-18, and Vol. 49, No. 2, geographic scope of the Thint.,n ruling is not clear and subsequent April 1981, p. 21. JULY 1982 21 215.lif~e Lan'! A-la, v -.YIvoe. 2 1- Or 52, 67, 342 P.2d 803, 811 I till59 the Itistites, Alito splia'tillv tonruirrd in the re~itlt. thelb'tn -Seea.ls" i'it, Br,, to S~tate Tax(.,,oq'n, I i()Or. 23i, 247, o2 decision shoutld hake beets bited ott the doctrine ol fibi 'o vh ? t R~~~~P2(d 7. 9 (1936): 11,11e v li5,t irlaAn /. I Or. 237. 243. insteadi of th il~ie otririe of itiotomntv i ig Iits . 20,4 ( )r.. it 01)111 412 92 P. 11)65, 1(168 (I9f17). P.2d at 678. 7w Ii.,so is term used 1)y jurists and vlt.I st holatrs 26. For a brijef discuiss ion of statei regu lat ion of I ands sea oaird ofth to refer to the pubslitci ruht s in navi gaih Ic ii a . vegetation line, see -Pris ate Lit toral Rights," inlri 40. 285 (r 19'7, 511( P. 2(1 71)19 )719-,(. Fo r eari cii relaiteddei etsionsItiS.5C 27. or. Rev. Stat. � 3911 615 I eq. See note 2. ,,.p'a, and ''Public .l!,,rw, v. Or1)1P, ' FltI fal,n, 31 (Jr A\p I. 5i'(, 5'2 l'.2dl Il/ Access Rights" and "Private Littoral Rights," Wnra. (II)17')1 lt.r v l, ,'sn Wu~' 'I.ll'li!,1 r App ;83. is] 28 _1i4 OJr. 584, 462 P.2d (71. See note 4. .0/ra, and 'Pubilic Access P.2u .521 (1978). Rights," mica. 4 1. Or. Rev. Stat. � 541.(015 eltq.. as arnsended by% Ch. 5114. lO"1 Or. 21). See note 7. s/Ira. There are some exceptions II) the use o~f the I16- laws 7014. For critical legal commentaries lin this statutlrvcIlsng~e foot contour. (Or. Rev. Stat. � 390.7611 and the 1971) M/.rc decisicon, see Comment, 11) Ensv. 1,(-.i (,5110)8 30.State agzencies are "'directed to periodically reexamine thIe Comment, Writ~ It ier /?,i,-rmr 1-d! .ini A'.mwal IsYer'llnr zi 10 line . .. for the purpose of obtaining information atid tiaterial Willamette L.Rev. 3-59 (1979). suitable for a re-evaluation and re-definition, if necessary, of suih 42, M s,ne v. Iio )Wm'i oi f-Stat" L~aod,. , il-ira 285 Or. at -1(1l. 5.I() line so that the private and public rights in the ocean shore shall lie P.2d at -II. (Filotnoste omnitted.) ptreserved."' Or. Rev. Stat. � 390.755. 43. See cases cited in Stile rv of. Th-rnl,n v. lI.:i. -qsrca. 254 Or. at (1101) 3 1 .5'l~e lam! Bair, v. Sause, /ipra, 2l17 Or. 52, 78-1/t0, 342 P 2i1 803, 61)1. 482 P 2d att 679) Denecke. .J.. sImeciiallI nctrring): NMcLen- 818-826: lf'ibon %. .Shivelv, 11 Or. 215, 4 P. 324. 32-5-326 (18.84), nani, 'ipra, note 4. 4 Frnv. L. at 328-33(1 Fhe court could cite Comment. s/ubort and! Accretion - Prmh/iutot O)rpk:'on,3 Willamette various statutory provisions and the Oregon Coiastal Management L.J. 345, 355 (1965). One of the most important cases arising in Program, as well its lake and river case law&, to support such it ril- Oregon concerning the distinction between the legal effect of ac- ing. cretion and erosion, on the one hand, and the sudden change 44. Ch. 601)1 967 Or. Laws 1448. The Beach Law,, which ssas amend. known as avulsion. on the other hand, involved at tonhidal stretch of ed in 1969). Ch. 61)1, 1969 Or. Laws 1 371), now, is cicdiFted at Or. a navigable river, not the seacoast. In .S'tate Lan'! Biar~l v. CwzIallh, Rev. Stat. � 390.60.5 it eq See generally NlcLennan. o/ira. isute 4. Yand & Graicel C/., 429 U.S. 363, 370-371 (19771. the U.S. Supreme 4 Env. L . at 356-358, 363-364: Shorcfr,,nt Icy, /ipra. note I ;it IS5- (:ourt held that state rather than federal law is controlling as toi the 27. legal effect of physical changes in the waterward boundary of lands 45. 254 Or. 584, 462 P.2d 671. conveyed under a federal patent But the court did not expressly 46 . .S'hrefrorn Aie~i, Isipra. note I, at IS. overrule language in Husghes v. ltasuhington, 389 U.S. 29)1) 293 47. "Ocean shore" is defined in the Beach Law its meaning "the land (1967), which held that federal law instead of state law governs the lying between evsreome /,,i tide- of the Pacific Ocean and the Fine d effect of shoreline changes on the boundary of oceanfront property jej'etatio~n as established and described . Or. Re%, Statt. conveyed by the United States before Washington entered the Un- � 391)0605(2). (Emphasis added.) 'rhe ocean sho~re thus contains ion. A case is now pending in the U.S. Supreme Ctiurt in which both tidelands and an upland strip. California is seeking the express overruling of the ll'l.'ley holding 48. OC.MP Am., mp/ra. no~te 21, "Shorefront A\ccess Iand Prostectioin," as to the seacoast State of Calijornia v. / oited Statei. No. 81-89 (Filed 1. (Emphasis added.) See also OCAIP. Co/rn. note 5. at I. July 7, 1981). Presumably, the court's decision in this case will However, litigation may arise in certain areas svhere lirivate [it- clarify' the effect of the Co'tral/it opinion with respect to the ty pe of toral owners have acted toi 1revent the public from graining access oceanfront property involved in the llsgghes case. For the subse- across their uplands to the adjoining tidelands or frtom otherwise quent Oregon Supreme Court decision in the (.irea/lit case, see 283 using the uplands. Or. 147, 582 P.2d 1352 (1978): see also Comment, After the Fluid, 49. Or. Rev. Stat. � 390.61I0(1). (2). The Beach Law's policy of ;tublic Wlho z Phis the I/er 'if the Rit er? State ()it erfhtip (I erm he/med hi, fIe access expressly refers to public rights or easements in that portion .Artilsiii Ride, 611 Or, L.Rev. 273 (1981). of the privately owned uplands within the ocean shore. i.e., 32. Stale Land Board v. Saute, rniprq. 217 Or. 52 1112. 342 P.2d all3. 81-. seaward of the vegetation line. See definition of "vegetation line" 828. as discussed in Stale L~and Board v. C'orrallis Sand & G;rav'el Coe. (16-foot contour line). Is/ra, note 7. supra, 283 Or. 147. 11,4. 582 11.2d 1.552. I 362. Ylie f ourt in Sause ;it(l. 50. In State Iltghrras' (:,,tmiiov v. Fri/f.: 261 Or. 289. 292 n.2, 491 P,2d howsever, that as rip~arian on ister ca nnot deprcive' lih si it' ,f itand I AI 171I, 1I 72 n.2 (1 9711 (state's denial of applIicatiso it)i complete filling, the area ;idjaiccnt tlo Isis piroperty. 21I7 Or. ;t 99, 342 I' 2d J1construction of road and revetment on dlry-sand heacs upheldi. 81)3. Fora:sdiscussioni nthIe Sante case, see Commenit. mn/ra. toiit 31, the Oregon Supreme Court said that its decision in 'i'ate ev rel. 3 Willamette L..J. it 352, 3;1-'i34. Thqmfrtii v. l/Iar, ,qicpa, 254 Or. .584. 462 P.2d 67l. disposed of the 33. Or. State Soil & Water Comm'n, 2 Ini'entori: Oregon Coasatal constitutionality of the Beach Law. Shoreline Erosion 2 (1978) This report cites a 1976 study identifying 5i. In Ilay v. Brice, mp/ra, 344 F Supp. 286, the United States District If17 miles of erosion along the coast, "including '56 where erosion Court for the District of Oregon rejected the argument by the same was aggravating landslide or flooding hazards, threatening roads private landowners who lost the Thoirnttsn case in the state Supreme and buildings." Court. The owners argued that Thornton, coupled with the enact- 34. OCMIP Am., /ipra. note 21. "Shoreline Erosion Planning ment of the portion of the Beach Law (Or. Rev. Stat. Process." See Or. Rev. Stat. � 197.4015; Hildreth, (,oatta! Natural � 360.6 10(3) ) vesting a public recreational easement in the dry- Hazards MIanagemnent, 59 Or. L.Rev. 201. 220, 228 (198f)). sand area, violated the constitional prohibition iagainst the taking 35. Bert v. S'alishant 1,,)Perties, In. , 282 Or. 569, 578-57911, 581) P.2d 173. of private property without just compensation. 176-177 (19-78), discussed in Hildrcth, n/ira. note 34, 5~ Or. 52. Shorefront Acreccs, itipra. note 1, at 19). See also (OCMP Am., iiiire, L.Rev. at 213-214. See also (,,,, v. Carihban lPriicrtef, Inc.. 279 Or. note'21, "Shorefront Access and Protection," I 333, 569 P.2d 1033 (19-77). 53. 254 Or. 584, 462 P.2d 671. See brief discussion under "Title to 36. For a brief discussion of California cases, including Mlarkt v ~ Lands Within the Coastal Zone," sn/ira. l1 bilnev, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 118 Cal. Rptr. 790. 491 P. 2d 374 (1971 ). see 54. Blackstone said that a valid custom would be found if the practice the third article in this series, .'t'hore & B~eath, Vol. 41). Nit. 2, April was (a) ancient, (b) continuous and uninterrupted. (c) peaceable 1981, pp. 22-23. and free from dispute. (d) reasonable, (e) limited in scope, and Mf 37. For a brief discussion of Florida cases, see the fourth article in this consistent with other customs. I W%. Blackstone-, Cotmmentaries series, Shore & Beath, Vol. 41), No. 3, July l1981, p. 16. '75-'78 (Cooley's 3d ed. 18841. 38. For a brief discussion of New Jersey cases, including Bor'oigh o/' 55. This test is also referred to as "time out of mind or the memory of N'epitune City v. Birought o~f Ai'rn-hy-the Sea, 61 N.J. 29)6, 294 A.2d 47 man." I WV. Blackstone, itt/ra. note 54, at '76; Chta/inanzv. Smith, 28 (1972), see the seventh article in this series, Shore & i/each, Vol. 51). Eng. Rep. 324, 326. 327 (Ch. 174). No. 2, April 1982, p. II. 56. Strate ex rel. Thornton v. hlay, tn/ra. 254 Or. at 595-598, 462 P.2d at 39. Under the public trust doctrine, the public has the right to use 676-678. (Footnote rimitted.) tidal waters irrespective of whether the underlying lands are 57. For a brief discussion of (;tsn v. Cit, 'if Santa Cruz. and DietZ v. King, publicly or privately owned. The Oregon court's decision in Stale 2 Cal. 3d 29. 84 Cal. Rptr. 162, 405 P.2d 50 (1970), see the third ex ret. Thornton v. Ilesy, sn/ira, 254 Or. 584, 462 P. 2d 67 1. was based article in this series, Shore & Beath, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 198 I, p.~ on the theory of custom rather than the public trust doctrine. See 23. "Public Access Rights," infra. However, in the opinion of one of 58. For a brief discussion of'Seaway (Lb. v. Attorney Gecneral, 355 S.W 2d 22 SHORE AND REACH 923 (TVex Ci%, App. - Houstori l')(4. tv rie wfi rl T. .) ee the Fifth Naj W tal- bi RJftpran atbd Ohn nr'. 3 Willamette L4 63. 65. arti( le in this series. .Sh,,w & Bfaci, Vol 41). No 4. Octtober 198 1, 6t6 (19(,4) p). 28. 04 Or.~ Rev. Stat. �39(1.605 Ft seq. See "Public Access Rights." sipra 5') 254 Or, at 594, 462 11 2d at 6,7( Tht. cited statute is Or Re%. Stat 65 254 Or. 584. 462 P.2d 6,71 See "Title to Lands Within the Coastal 300 6,1 0 Zone" and " Publii Access Rights.' xutra. 61) 2~4 Or. at 592-5'03, 402 1'.2d at 675. T h i 'ls term is defined a,, including *a structure, appurtenance (it 61254 Ot . at 59.5. 46,2 P.2d at 676 For a legal commeit-1atot's other addition. modificatioin or alteration ((onstructed, placed or (rtiti ni okIa broaid interpret ationt that the coort 's rulniztgapplis's t I made on or toi the land. ( r. Rev Stat � 39) 6(5~ 1 bea( lies in Oregon. see Comnmeti. /iuhi;, Ar- :,. fbis h. '. 22 (- ( )i Res Stat � 39)) 64)), 39(1.630. 39(1.655. 391) 658. Stati L Re%. 51,4. ;-s4-585 H((Ir,) Set- also Comment. 'lb, Lnhd 68 ( ht Re% Stat. 391)64)) It1 1"I)'l?)rj,P (.s,' vi 0'~,'rr, J'l'q'e) 1an, . xxao exi, 0. 7h,-ryawn limit. 19 C(t. Re% Stat i 390.65)), 39(1.(-5; 4 1'rs. L 383 19-4 ) Ih fi, regonr Supreme Court applied the '7) ( )r. Re% Stat. 273.;551 274.11l it .oq 27~4. -105 ! '0; 7b-r,,rt,',v rule in another locale in which the rial i, urn found a des - ' 1 .`,7111ti 71", & Brol! ., (,'isai',i, 7sie ris ( s ., 251' or (12. sand are;, had been used lif% the puIbli( for recreational pinrprises 6,37-(,44. 443 I.2d 21)5. 217-22) (11)68) Hotwever, the lease was .since I S9i) HihU01a (~irm-p"?',"vs I-ut. , io. 261 Or. DO9. held invalid under the facts of the case. 49I P.2d II 'l. However, it has liten held that the recreational 72. O r. Res Stat. � 391605 of s~q See 'Private Littoral Righis." inf-ea easemeni will not be judiciallk recogni7ccd under the 7h(,rra,,n rule "3. ()r Rev. Stat. ~;4I .61) rf -~;See ''Orecon's Publlic Trust Dm-a in areas hid o ftevgtto line The state's Hiuhwasv Corn- Seine.' up';~a McIenna. (11f'- tnote 4. 4 Ens L. ai 351 .3;'.~ ( om- mission attempted to assert public recreational rights in the mewt i~. note 41. WIII ns. 1, (,rs. Comnment. .py,sf noie 41. Ii' privately oned sand dunes ab,4 etth-e s'etarinin line, but the Coorn Willamette .Rer%. 359 of Appeals held that such riights had not been established under 74. See McKenna. .isf'. noite 4. 4 Ln%. L. at 368-301". This comnmis- various legal theories State lhz~'/tuai (.r'minni.oo v. lBaiwnar.. 16 OJr. sion noi longer exists. A'pp 2'5. 517 P.2d 1202 (1974). With respect to the doctrine of 75. Ch 81). 1073 Or. Laws 12"'. custom, the court pointed out that there %%as no evidence that 76. Or. Rev. Stat. � 197.075 elf sq. proved that similar privately owned dune areas along the Oregon 77. Or. Rev. Stat. � 197.225.S coast had been customnarily used for recreational purposes. See 78 Or. Rev. Stat. � 197.0301 ef seeq. related prior case, ,Stat' ri rl. 7ohln~ior %. Bitinian. 71 Or. App. 489, 79. Or. Rev. Stat. � 197.23( OCM?, Itupra. note :'. at . -8. 23-27, 343- 492 P.2d 284 (1971I (attorney general has no auithority to bring 349. suit to declare public recreational easement in privatelys owned 8(1. The program was prepared piursuant tii the federal Coastal Zone oceanfrcint land) Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. � 1451 el srq. (2 Or. Rev. Stat. � 39)1.63)1 SI. As of February 1982. of Oregon's 42 coastal Jurisdictions. three (63 Wrt(alehl V. H.'le ad Tinnrtbr (,.,. 20)8 Or. 371. 387-388, 302 P.2d had plans appeased by both federal and state authorities and two 238. 246 (1956). discussed in Comment. The Rigrh! ,f Aes.' I, others had plans approved by the state. JULY 19B2 23 The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part IX: The Louisiana Approach By PETER H. F. GRABER Office of the Attorney General, Stat e of Ca(lifornial San Francivco, California ODAY'S LOtU ISIANA coastal law reflects nlIany di- The coastal zone, whiich includes all or part of 18 verse elements, ranging from ancient Roman parishes (counties), `' may be divided conveniently into legal do trines on (ouiniulial ownlership of the uplands. tidelands and submerged lands.11 seashore to 31 years of litigation in the United States Supreme Court between the Federal CGovernment andl the state affectiig their revetnues from the Union's most A. Uplands extensive offshore oil and natural gas operations. By a quirk of history dating from the Louisiana Most of the state's coastal zone uplands are privately Purchase in 1803, Louisiana is the only state to follow owned,'2 with c(hains of title originating from the Fed- the early Roman laiw of communal ownership of the eral Government and the predecessor French and Span- seashore and of tidal boundaries.' This boundary rule ish governments.'3 The seaward boundary of the upland has been criticized because the state adjoins the open parcel may depend on the source of title to the parcel.'4 seas of the Gulf of Mexico, not the landlocked and Louisiana has more than a quarter of the nation's virtually tideless Mediterranean Sea, where the Roman coastal wetlands,'5 extending "from the Sabine River law originated. on the west to the Pearl River on the east and [includ- The Bayou State's courts have struggled with apply- ing] most of the land south of [the Interstate highway ing the rule along a largely marshy open coast2 and in linking Lake Charles, Baton Rouge and New Orleans] deciding iwhether such bodies of water as Lake Pont- to the Gulf of MIexico across the entire state."l6 chartrain are arms of the sea instead of true inland The state's vetlands areas have been characterized as lakes.3 a "battlegrounld" between the competing interests of For more than three decades, the state and the Federal developers and environmentalists.'2 Recently, how- Government have enlgaged in a bitter legal dispute over ever. some proposals to mitigate the loss of wetlands how far Louisiana's jurisdliction over submerged lands have been approved, and these plans now are being extends into the (;ulf.4 Tlhe prize: a huge pool of ietro- implemented.ls Nevertheless, the seashore is still crod- leumn now being tapped further and further seaward of ing due to both natural and manmade causes.' the state's Suplrteme Courrt-a;djudicated boundary.i With New ()rleats already the nation's second larg- B. Tidelands est port, Louisiana is truly in the vanguard of new shipping technology. Superport, a massive deepwater Under the eclual-footing doctrinle,20 Louisiana as- terminial off the stte's cost ma represent the waveof sumed title to the tidelands within its borders upon its thefututireforhandling the fruitsof offshore petroleum admission to the Umion Al)ril 8 181L2' The drilling.' Department of Natural Resources manages the state- owned tidelands.22 TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE C. Submerged Lands Louisiana's coastal zone is defined in the State and The dispute over owlnership and control of Louisia- Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (Act na's oil-rich offshore lands seaward of the tidelands has 361) as "the coastal waters and adjacent shorelands within the boundaries of the coastal zone... which - rh . .a . t, , . .. . . .. h ",.,,tp,,a itre of! silt, ,, t i/,r ,l,,.-ltt',t,,.' [. rile ar,,,,e Ihst(i ut,, a.n :e , ?tta.s as/s.'. I .,I the are strongly influtenced by each other, anld in proximity ......,,,.......,. ,nt,,.,,,it..a.t~,,e:,,te, to the shorelines, and uses of which have a direct a;ndice h ep-N.1 stt ;:;:J,",: intI',l S. t 'v,.r1.1 ., significant impact on coastal waters."s 'The landiward rh ., p ,,,d th . . . . . . l., .,.,,.t. I . boundary is a line administratively (leli neated ii ac cord F . .o....... ...... with the act.9 fI, e,,h.t 4,, t., ,. ..r. 16 SHORE AND BEACH fit 1937 till' state viuiac rd legislation Iit anl attermpt Io Tllcolctu~ali%, diicefote. Louiisiania ha~s a mote1 land- cxp d jdli ts, C oastai i)otifldaiN tt\5Iaxvin 27 ile11s Ii ltil' NN-ald plvl pblibi: Tidal] hottndaiv line than) the Gulfi of Nltxi(o.` tuajorIts of the oastal states,w lli( h1 follow the English 1Th1 Su~plentc (Cmttill in1950 applied its calliel (inci- commo11n-law, pmipiuipe i.e., that the oidinlarN high- 51011~~~~~" ttiltt(.llot Li ouI~iusiania. Tlle couli I walt-I mat k (ot tillc 10nc of nicanl high wvatet) is the iwld thate the Felicial G(;os'ct nnwnt instead olI Ihv state bouttdat .'" The only states with similarly ilaniaidad hlas patiatntmmi rights in tfie subnilergtd ]lands. incitid- boundtida s ac ta(' iawji wNith its unullsua~l aboriginal ing lull d1titiniott 051 ciii atnd fic 011( tsolitets ill the( conct-pt thatIi( bh outndary is marked liv til upper~' 111d(I IN ci I I.Q soi- )Iace of III was IN, tiw SwI(III aves.,4 anitd palrts of Tex as, C bng'tes" c]tel led lo the Supwieme CouitI decisions w-helt. the line. of nmeal nghighe high wa.;tet is uised w-hen agaliiit I l'olisiallia and othiei coastal states by passing the littotal] palcel's tilie ol iginaic's from1) a prcl -1(10 tile Sublutgcdtg( itLands At Iof) 1953."l- 'ndei tltis act. l( tue ~ oicall~(' lecdctal G()xoc('t ~IltuI tcIt~iqII(islicd its title claimls to U se of thec *higiie"st tide. of Iicl 5511n1(1 seasonl as sthteud I ,ulds withiit tlie iio~l~lidill iIs Of at sta mle 55'(1 Loulls~aial S p)OJlopTIN lotltldatN has h-eet (1 it,( iied In, il joined ti n'Ltioni ol as plcviollsly approved III (:01)- sm ea rtr.A13Iclntel tts Ihs[oe g icss, bult Iii et xtend intg toi)1I than 3 ildnrile leagules (9 Ptoii t houglhitlessIN bc irowecd frot01 ill( Romnal georajltia I miles) fot GulIf states. law," Is obviouisl ill -suited to Louisiana, where a coas- iI-Iwever~c. this stat uc' failed( to resoilve Louisiana's f] inc of marsh lands, aned higher wvater in the( sumrmtyc dlispitli with t wI Federal Governmentt over thc territot- thivan in the( winter season. are the usual oec(uri-rie'.'-36 ial sea. Ini 19601 tli(l US. Supreme Court rej'C-ted the( Noting that modern French and Spanish civil codes use staw'Ics ciali n to a 9-ile-idc' it. ruling that it wvas t he highest tides oIf thel Near. not just till'- winter, ito (llt Itled to (IN 'Jtl ynmies.2' N'ine y'cars Waei the justices determine the hourtdarv, the( crit i(l tI cotnclutdes: again thwarted Louiisiana' s "effort to mraximile its tel - "With these different ouc cptiticns of scashwoc ill mrind. I ]lot till ow-ner ship., in a c-itse Irulitig againist the state it is difficlt Lilto Sec wit' till, drafter S of lihc Loutisiana ott 'to~ queistions oIf critical Importance for under-(iv cdcf188hoetfocwtilRnaldfu- stanIdintg theo le-gal im11pliceat ions of coastal ('rosioti" ';tion. wvith in i as appliiicable to the landlocked and ''hit S, tuec C~oul I (1(.ciddlci tat inlternationlal law%% Must elimcst tdeless Mediterranean. but wkhich (ald not sluit cifcc t of thItis dcci siot) wNas to iti rninniic Louiisiiis ufArcl11.hwe.cearycnsratesth offslic~r claimis. Secit~ni, aend miote itniportint, the Romain rulc' ill Louiisiana." (:outi declared Ioisttacaslntol'nbtafr.Louisiana's courts have construed "'the waters of the I'iusnmeans Lotuisiatna'sbiaselini' (ff10o which the terni- sea"' as meaning that portion of the sea that washes the tonial sea is mt'asttred) fa cativ101 latdidard as tilecoas- open coast, butl exclttding the "'combined salt and fresh dtIme ctodc's, depriving Louisiana of sllistantial off- waters which at high tide overfiow, the batiks of anl shtore oil lvrcei ttc.' 2S adjacent bav, bavout 01 lake.""3 To be part of the statu- F'or Loutisiana, the( financial stakes itl this length%'. tory ''seashore'' the lands must be ''directly overflowsn billet t(rCCtto(rvhav' beetn htuge. As offshore( drilling bv the tides''; consequent ly, "'not all lands subject to ivciitologN acivattccd. allot,,'ing oil and gas explor-ation tidal Overflow ate 'seashore''3 and p~rodutction ftomn rigs further offshore, the amount The Louisiana Supreme Court has also held that (If motney i it] t-e )('ttrolieuPot expatide-d.dramaticailly. Lake Potitchiartrait'i, the large body ofNwater-along Newv W\hile the origitial 1950 Louisiana decision ''con- Orleans' northern flank, is an artn of tio' sea, and thus cc'rtlCcd 'applroximate(ly S12,000,000 in cash bonuses and subject to the "open coast" ruie."' This concept, wNhich rentals, atic over a mrillion dollars in royalties.' [by the affects tile legal consequences of accre'tion to the lake's tinle ofl] tii(' 1969 Louisiana decisioti, the( contestants shores. has been criticized. It has been pointed out thart vie'd for over otil' billioti dollars which had accumu- the( ''shores ate- c('rtaitlly not part of till' 'ope't coast,' latcd in escroiw SitiC(' l9Sti.2S nor are its Water S salinie, oz affected bN the tides to an-, serious degrees."4' While the old Roman legal principle etibodied in DETERMINATION OF TIDAL B0OUNDARIES Article 151 of the Civil Code has been generally applied along the open coast, one of the Lake Pontchartrain cases42 has been cited by some authoritiles for the propo- A. U~pland/Tideland Boundary sition that ttpland parcels stemming from French and Spanish grants are' bounded by the ordinary high-water Louisiana's civil-lawN heritage' is rC'flected in its rtiles mark instead of tile line of ''the highest tide of the (It) til' legal bout~iarics bet ween privately owned winter seaSo~n.''43 uplailds andC sovereigtn lands underlyitng tidal waters. Louisiana still followss the early Roman law, which pcio(lainied'( tile sC'a andicl t(' seasil(rC' re~s C(M ???fltals, ot B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Lnocation Iconiniont to all,''atnd tiot subject toi private owniership.11 of the Shoreline Arti(cl 451 of thll Lottisiana Civil Code, as revised in 1978311 states:' "Seashote is the spalce (If land over whicil tlil' waites of the( sea spread il till'- highest tid(' of tIle( ulnike other coastal states. Louisiana does nfot give wvin t(' Scaisoll." This prov~isioni is subistanttially th eill' tic private littotral owniSS0 the benefit of any accretion, satine ats iti earllei law-s deatitg back to) 180, a decade whetheric tlatuiral or mantmade, to his upland; ''any OCTOBER 1982 17 --n IM~~~~~~~~~~ V-- t-4 Y Fig 1 eril vew f GandIsl, oe o Loisina' barie shrelne ecratinalares, he slad aso ervs a islnd wic hlpprtet hemashycostfrm bsefo te ffhor ol ndsty ndasa isin erosion -mm Conaiin on-ftesaesfvoie pr.(htg aphb.USAmyCrs fEgier 18 SHORE A~~~~~NDMBAC ml (I(.[if)tII, itlIotig tit S(i'lsici St Im If.p] opelt 01% o III lvs 1.1 NaIm 1(g Ian tI Sto s(I I a .1.' niII IItiillit ostal EnvNitI- staw."'. olitleliattl Piotv~iol tlTiIt list i 111(1 t halt c oastail N~uie~i' I.otts~itIc oirsYhvc licold tliaitdisiti- tiisi. pIda id illii a no-will sliti'ation ... :if hIls lHand Is vnod- LOUISIANA'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE ilig. fit' lost's ossiit'iship to the -state: if his land isacg crt- 11g.lit, hit buotIts 51latt'l otit ili oittatll~ aNi sit ip (if Althollgh L~ouiisiania's legall heritage-with its(iil statc-owlicd landl."1 laiw I oots'.1 as opposed to tlw( Eniglishi (ommion law. Foi II leaist foll ur ad(-(tl, ('l~otio has bf-ct ai sevelt. adopted bN othe) Coastal statles-i S SiiigtilaIN lv unusall pIOl)bl'i-1 alontg L ouisiana's (oast. shtotc']jin c'1osioti. the pitlbii ?aitis do(triiie", has bet-ti applli('(l reenity if) alongt witli5( such oll1 fa tmots as 1itat sli delcli olatioli tIll' Btl\oi States Iltavigab~le walel S. atid ilattal i otistim un 01. hats i('sttlted ill a total land loss " 'A bteakthrotigli il (lie awa of pitillit tidst litigatioti sill( ' ]91() of ":')O( s(Ilcat( Indlus, j opie-scnting] about oe itned iii 1975, wlh('n rile l'ouisialla Sitprenii (;nrt oIe half tlit total ait'a of Rhode- l[shlutd . decdd(l Iadmakcs f(tlfilCp.'..f/( T1W Ihaft Fl'vlriollniital lImpact Statement andI "-Xiuical Boa)(l."'A li tat cast, thiecotil voided patents" Pto ~,(d) oi~c anisia na C oa stalIR'sn cc's toglani pt e- to ih bott otmois of cerltainl walterhodclis inl Placutmieni ineS pared in l979and a fOwICtItIet to the 19801final ElSand Pal is,'t' ''holding that ithe lands . .. may not be pii - federa llN appit ved pro gi aml, (on tat s a detailed dis5- vatelx owned. atic cannot be alIiena ted I)\ the( state.' '2 etussion of shore] i tieeosion. It warns: ''Louisiana is Thf. j 1srices ''cotieluded that [Itlc] Stalte twnhde bed s now losing tmole land t hani aliv other State.""' The of navigable waters 'on lv in the ca pacity of trustee foi dctliutenit . wli i It po int ing ont that a " complex mix- tie illierest of thec people of thec state.' lutre of nian's act iviltics and natutral factors'' have' Ac-cording to a lega~l commentator Gactsed the land lOSS, also Staltes: ''EVC't Without niali's '"At itht least, thc (;rlJ Oil dec isionl shows it judi( ial act ivit its, ('tostoit wlould certainlyI occtit aloti Some' predisposition to lprottet Ithe public lands of I.onlisialla sc~trolis of ilc os '5front ill-toiisiderc'd alictiationls bN the legislaltm.rc. If I ' toit is guidelitnes ~tioifltlgat('d under thd'- Lotuisi- ril'ltiurdbyftrihoinste(rlOidei ana Statc- and L~oeal Coastal Maniagement Act of 1978 S~ion (oldli proN(- ali ('5('i greaic'r contributitiit to it (A(ct 301 W'P addreuss the -i osioti pr obltii. The guide- ld'v('lopmewri of public trust law iti Louisiana.''" lines, first approved In the( Louisiana Coastal Conmmis- It has ileeti asserted that, foi public trust purposes, sion, thc'n by legislati've conimititees and finally by the Article IX, Section .3 of the state's 197-I Constitution. giverinir in I 98(J. state thtiti 'tepliyote wi'ch priov-ide(s hat thc' state mnay not selil pub~li lands, c-oastaoliresoLiteecsiprograni'' litha 'all uses and activlitieIs 'must be interpreted somew&hatnmore broad]lythan [its] shallbe plnned site, deigned cc~struced, peratd Nsords Permit literally; that is, the provision must atitlmaintined o a~'id tothe mximumexten l~ra- lx read to prevent an- .person f rom interfering wvith the titable sigtiificant . . . land loss , erso ndsbi public use', or in any way diminishing the value of the dell(ce.--11eoin n sb public trust.-'61 Thic imp)orta( ('ofithe loss of Louisiana's wvetlands52 The term ''public trust,"' as employed in various is( closely related to secioast ('rosion. Grand Islc Ffig. I) Louisiana StaltutCS,66 has a different meaning than the is 111 o t iebarie isans tia 'proid naurl po- same words when they are used in describing the so- tc('cion for marshe's ftoi storm surge and hurricanes, called tidelands trust, ''As anl essentially English con- butl [which] art- rapid~ly eroding."-,'' Among thc' causes cet the public trust doctrine is difficult to engraft into of such c't(- osioti are the inadequate ''supply .of sand and the Louisiana [Statutor1`~] schenic; ..' sedinient being carric'c to the sea by coastal rivers'' and the wvidenting of ''tidal l)asses betwecen barrier islands . . . to tlhc' detrime'nt of the' estuaries and coastal PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS marshes.".''5 Economically, shoreline ('rosion has grav(' conse- The question of the pulblic's rights of access to tidal (Tluent e fot Louisiana. T'his is partly because of the waters-a controversial issuel in such states as Califor- U.S. Supremec Courti's decision that the boundarv' linc' nia,11 Newv JerS('y,61 Oregon70 and Texas',' has, until betw'en taic sumergd lads ad fderaly cntroled recently, received scant judicial or legislative attention of soc lands is aniabulatory line, moving lanldwAard in Louisiana, This may be du(' inpatothfctha if thic baseline from which it is nieasured erodes.55 As a the state has hardly any sandy beaches along the Gulf of comimen tator (('centV lv pin ted out: Mexico. Other geographical and historical factors are ''Thi retreating shoreline re-sulting from erosion will probably also partly responsible for the lack of interest aumsc' Louisiana to suffer a significant decrease in in the access question. r~ventiv reicetived fromt the oil industry bec-ause the state As the state's 1979 Draft Environmental Impact is i mited if) rc'vc'tu derivedc fro") production Wi thini Statement puts it: thl-net' mib of tIli' shoreline. It is estimate'd that if emo- ''Withi its many has's, coastal lakes and marshes, Loui- Sioi (a imsed thev shiore-linc to recede onc' mile, Louisiana siauia has a tremnitdous amount of shoreline ... wotuldt lose S36.5 niihlioi Iin sl'~ere'tme taxes annually to There is a great potential fot public recreation along Iil( fe'deralI g owicrm il'nt."'', tbe coast, butl this potetitial has not been fully realized Efforts arc' beintgmdpoalvit c rbcm for sevyeral reasons. Oni' rceason ,.is the extent of thfe ''ccgiIziug th(', (atatstrophlii prcohl('m that erosioti coastal wetlands whiach, following chif shore, reach s t th stic' tu' os-rno] r'c'nty sgtid itoninety miles inland, reiidcrintg landward access OCTOBER 1982 19 l-Iistori( al ly, Lo)uisiana's civil-law tradition in tie- lionl aind louilhg;aioni ( o~~t . . . i ldI() It t 01- orV flis ("Perate"l Io protect ~he public's coastal acce~ss io . ltsrm ile ii hinpttis rights. T he moIre landward extent of public tidelands OWICwneshiil) (i(CilPared to that of states following the C(1711t`1(1i-lih rule), coupled with the state's title to B. Regulatory Functions accreted lands, means that access along much (I tile Gurlf coast theoretically is available to the publ ic." Wiih the ap i 10al of the Loutiis"ila na (os~taI Rest il F-roin a practical viewpoint, however, coastal mnarshecs ceCs Programl in 1980, tile state( is iltiplenlentil'1i ig tlie in pede direct landward access to many shorel inie oastfil II usCe eIII it IsystemI IorI var il uts rtt LI(II Ited act i vi - a Irea S.74 tieCS a LthiorIited t In der I he Lotiisiana L St ate 11nd ILawal1 The Louisianla State and Local Coastal Resources Coastal Resource,(s \Ianagenieciti(toAttf 1978 (Act 61 ).sh Mlanagemient Act of 1978 (Act 361) expresses legislative Adnministra tie rules anld plort-tdures for- the permnits ctonncern about tnariy coastal zone issues, incl uding [fie have beeni adopted",7 and tilt oastall itatiagerIleint Sec- enhancemnent of ''opportunities for the use and enjoy- r ion of thle Division of.State Lands inl thel Department of nienit of [lie recreational values of the coastal zonie.'''' Nat ural Resources has gratited iitumerttus pcimit The Louisiana Coastal Resources Program inclides appl ications.", gtiitelines, approved in 1980 and intended to imple- This 19J78 law and Act 705 plassedI in I 977"" were thle nilent the policies and goals of Act 361 *76 Guidelines culmination of a lenth1'"i anld controversial effort ito 1I61' anid 5378 expresslv relate to public accesstn c~oastal create a Louiisiatna coastal zone managemient tiuethai- areas, an important element in fostering recreational nism. The effort dattes from 1970, wvhen "thle Louisianai uise of tidal waters and lands. Coastal Cotrmnissitm, a soutztwest Louisiana regional authority. was recharteted to concern itself wi,,ith long- range water resource management prob~lems of thet PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS region including navigation improvement, polluttion abatement, erosion (control and watter trianagenment."''90 Louisiana's private littoral owners do not enjoy the Although the lparishes or local governmentts have at usual right toalluvion, or accreted land, even If it forms big role in Louisiana's coastal zone managenrlent,'" naturally.7 Similarly, it appears that they do riot have various state agencies in addition to the coastal mnan- some other rights typically recognized in most coastal agement section. Division of Suriie Lands, Department states. of Natural Resources, are Involved in varuious facers of Private owners must obtain state Department of coastal zone planning and regUlation.9` Natural Resources permits 'toconstruct, alter, improve, The Louisiana Coastal Resources Plan, largely based extend, or maintain any wharf, pier, dock. httlkhead, on the Stateand Local Coastal Managemnent Act of 1978 landfill, structure,orotherencroachmienit.',"I However, (Act 361), was approved by thle Federal Government onl subject to various exceptions, September 19. 1980, (luring the *\'ear of the Coast." [.. ojwners of land contiguous to and abutting navigable waterbottoms belonging to the state . .. have the right to reclaimn or reccmer lanid, including all oil, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS gas, and mrinaeral rights, . .h st through trosion by action of this navigable wvaterbody (cCUrring on and The author is grateful to Joel L. Lindse, (oastal after July I~ 1921. . ''~' management section admitoistrator, D~ivision of State ''Reclamation'' as definedl in this law includes filling Lands. Department of Natural Resources. State of tidal land. other than beds of rivers. ''above the level of Louisiana, and Paul I Iribernick, editor, and Joseph F. ordinary high water."''8 Wills and April R. Snellgrove, managing editors, In addition, under rules governing coastal use per- Louisiana Coastal Law, Sea Grant Legal Program, mits, there are a numlber of activities niot requiring Paul L. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State U.niver- permits. e.g., construction of residlences and, in gen- sity, for providing some of the source materials cited it] eral, ''[aictivities occurring wholly onl lands five feet or this article. more above sea level or within fast latids that (to niot normally have direct and Significant impacts on coastal wafers."13~ REFERENCES L EAS I N( AND R EG ULATIO N a~i malua in g llt' tts.3(-31. 36i-11 mf.rt la. u nter teltntu ia OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS Fidat Boiuidarics." 2. ~ttiszita.( i~ittiit 1t71 t uileNs tongl, sidi t. 122 ittitlioi the Ilittainnd and 591 mit ,smttt aijtijstlands. iheiaid. AlaroginellSeas .Aroutnd Utie la's2 tLa.t..Rvv. 13t, 111 ( t~ti. More thin 25i A. Leasing %%reiturttlusaiwtatids inthe t 'mitd Staitt-saiit itt jiisi- mia. Coitnimnin, Cortjlifotng Intlere~ts it Stiltherpt Lolmoii Ital Louisiana's Department olf Natural Resources mnay t1'tellaod: Privale 1)P7e1'eli erv V erits Cotrsert'altonsts. and ithe lease the state's tide-flow.ed lands and waterbottomis for Nlate arid Fedleral flegtilarav flfles. 'lti Full.L.Rcv. tij06t. 111117 the dlevelopment of oil, gas and other minerials.84 (1982). See die .tdititna diiit itsissiont il titie (extii atttiriattyiilg notles 15-1t7, infra , nitrtter" t'ite to Lattds Within titt CmuistiIl The Office of Coastal and Maritne Resources in the Z one." For as .ttnltndrvf tilt- iuipai(t (it theseos tsoi.1 Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is empowered to thiewsashore in t .ouiiiiana. see "Iegil Effrut of [,fsami liarca inges 20 SHORE AND BEACH ilk I? If ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~21 Io4 a4 f Ifti~t Ilis( iissioii ofIbeeuit Me114 ec4:1I IIItg di I11. XIII It '- if(.tits Ir i1Sut' tI I- (144 ist is iio itlt lkII.I li~t at iilfl]p~i] ~I igtit 14(4-S '. 17. t4 a. .4 I ifIc I ii ttil Setit-4S. Shofft aid Bra44 I t. Vol 48, No. -1. Of mttlf if Ikc-t 1)1I )(t( III 1lt I tlka(io of I rIl Atl) l vitdif'sI 19(1 SO,~ l-I .I SI-I I itt I ed .lIlca f, 1 % ~n ililti ,ii I.2 ' S 726 4 19.8 1.I1114(,lit Ifsi Iift 2. lI'I ( I Si iifiaa A(t cit Ad if)i SltIit. 21 Stit . 7(011. (I o)Iit ItIfS Su( if t S-i-,S of C isis oI I I I% thi I, ti IIlk 1.137 L~oilist.41.4 i 41Iittl piox4 iso4 Lit. Civ. (odt art. -150 pio% cbis- ill plit 1: ''1iilit ithiltgs I lidjitn d it Si it vii 27 till' It-, (;ofit ll . Ili (918( tti- I'.S. tliii blonlitg tol lilA statc ati' Sw4 11 a . ,4 titt vIIitotial Sea and like SiI;pt4-Ill" (.441 iiil (ii 1.1I ( Slimi tc 5t iti s ttHitil](-(ill4 ahl it iti] lIN.4 3 't'sholii. Il"This siatlel is ( ols41i'.54lI withli Liiisiaiiisi ( ivil-lass flows 2) andi 2I-2'). mfi4a. iiiitc'i " (fit- 144 Limits W~ittin it (-ii fitttc not sctlijt'4 11 Jiial4sri'si 1ot abhif-ii disc itssionc, Ih( 0m: si. Zo/444 ." I% list liw, %c't' ftile fit.si attic Ic itt this si-licnS, Short'and tIBacin. Vl,'d AS ot I9#0ti4. l 44441 tft44 bI illionr %ivis atl 'tals ilii l( It-iilegl Iittlill 18. No. '1, Of jbiIi 19.8(4II. 14-15. h-tlstctil I .i~iiiii:la alld4 fit- Ndl'tit't Giivctttttii'rii1 Si-i- itii- acddi- 22. 1.;,i Ri-s. Stat. 1 1:-1e'sc. 171-1 173 121 1-1219, 12(l etrq~ t444.1d.it (1i544sS444iiitttiii 4 iitlk.4514Ztic 2h. . cif i\tci' 23. hi-land'. 1u4la. 144444 2.21Li. 1..Rt- . at 28(1-282: bit-and. Malgcici .1I I 4 I .,144utsd, 44(44 4144]i Coaisi~il zoiin ." Stakei oflrt jals ate. .Se's A'uito id f/ic NteItr, I LI. ILRi's. 281 wt 12-1 (191(1). lsc'i'tilx ;iwjIti o lit tpick foils j l4ttittiliI assc4-: "''14 lit-plc'ituillin anii 2-I 1 ~-of :1bie li t-dis ussioti of thei .Li/,iewiis' l~c c ax cse, Site S/ifor Si4944III II.1111 SI i~t It) 4(4 IIatit fa i I I'St44't]gN . %%vii Ifilec Otitet Cot Iti- 25. 1 44414(/ fik i .Sae Lomuc'4atn, 334. V'.S. 699. (195(1) tititlil ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~S 141 44441l445I~ii44iitiiiii~di Iitis ii ri am 21 i. 67 Skill. 29. *13 U'.S.C. 1301 4-7 seq. 4 .Se~te cuwnd Beari 14. Vocl. 49.. gi,4 A441441 ilt IItI IIno it att% sII(t 11;Iite ill Ittic lI'ii Ii IelSki]iti's" Dwifl Nol I . 'Jatiiit~ 1418I1,1 1 7. 1.I;'owi 44es -44444 441Iiclu /444(7 ril Lat('44'44 i444 Pto we Lou45'/1.)4isaia n 27. 1'kiiired.StIcI.% 'v. Louis4i.4ana4( 363 V.t i,. 1 , 36'3VS. 121,.364 V.'.S. 502 (. Re"clU'.5u44i cs P44444ogt Ileli'ttittfitc' rutt'rtecdlto as D)I'IS] 23 I , l~I 9 . 11979). II I ii lml ii 44(Coi si :i R(.sitithe v t llog ra t ga ineid Fedl- 28. F Iibinhric k. ' T'hic Legal I mpliraIi ots (if Coastal Erosioti in vIll appiiiri'tt:lliisal itt 19801, Iivtiti'I fualfiiig tilt- staff toi .ooisiatia.' L~a. (:oa.slal L.aw. Nci. 43. Dih'enitii' 1981. p. 3. I (iltiiic 44ul4 , I c' risi Ic'clud'r it I oiasetalo Iv i inic'tntig. (F~ootncii onutidIk(; cmntliiais in oitiginal. ) T(his t'xi'Ilent art icle 14. D) I IS. Nupit 4. tilet 4 5. at 29.1.3, 1(18- 1(19. niu metal es whla its alo t hicir a rail errzs as "a c umbeirsome sci- 7. 'ii ter-?ilIlii1.44 L limillij Slifl all([ 41441 1 oas( . ia 14 Reskin tees Man' it's of Supr-ieme(Citti cases' N- vlv i .4 iri i h' ie avvivviett A(ct (of 1978 Act I Oil ~.'atviiswi Iii lic'juriscticiionl Stair's. Tlb' atirluec of thai artiic'It is of the( opinion thiat Iihc cotirt. 44! ILostiiatt~ lllci' 'i't-imicial Adiwti tiiii (LOTA.4, related it) fii it, lite, 1981 fitial fctivuei ii Ui ttied Slale.,i %. Louisana, 452 Il44 tiiIti 444444ll utn Iii' do iiiisiattia (flshltti 0il Pollt 11.00. (I I I'S. 721ii(1981,). 'ifliplic'sthai t tif'1oiitacaiicrcd' Sl4 -111t 41(14 d444 Ti (4 wi14m in' a cas ta Ily ts -141 41ii ." DEIS)1 ,5 supra , d itt to ercosise ftri 's. til' U n i ied Staifles would have hitl rig hI lo ii, iti 5. at 4. Sit a lsc, id. at 1(13- 1(18. Flcu a ti ex ct]lieo ca psci ii seekL a more favcorablet bout ndarN -wit tibc' stIate irk coourt.'' Id. slilititi yt s otf Ith( air. fill ishi( II I,0i 'ictisiat. Coastal esi ccc (Fooilicai ofili r ld.) Plopio it. based7i iiSet' c- I'uot iltait. 1The L.ou is iait Ctoavi t Resoin cc '. 29.. TIav 1441. 7'Te Settletir e'tw of lh spu le.% Bectweent F'det'a antd StiraI Mel~avta~rime-ni -, t' of'S 28 L~a.hla J. 91t (l980). (;j'eonieils(;i rpncoi OJIs/ior Petroletumt Rersotac-s: At'- 8. 'Ilhi', sta iltit7 A( I 1161 of flthe I4.78 Se'ssion Il 11(0%, is4 ticlifitd. See La. (Ormtiocdatioct ()I A4dldirattctcu I I'Hart. atertI_1. 3. 358. 38-1 if. Res - Stat . 0 -1.. I33 I. 21 3-1. 'ITh seawa Ic hI rli ictda' of tliti 7(one 1 50(4 (197(0). (Ic'at IN . ik hit'e-cht rologociai Ihra ktiOo ughs 45sIine thfat is tttc'v st-a4wattd I itita of cit t i slt i . . as d 'cvuIflmirile lIf law. " art It-Ic has-c hudiitrther 'ca 144tetd 4hit' financial impact I o theScipremef 4.I lia Ri's - Still. 6-I19:21 *lCK. 1). (Curc i's du'cisicut against Louiisiania. For example. rigs are nowi Ill. (Colittxiiiilt, .stqpref. tutu 2. 56 -'l'ci L . Rvc' . :ilt 1(433 ri. IS(1. TI'c' l o c atced lti wa Icr more' ilhart 1.000 fe('t deep. (ild5 tgt ?44144 titiblta cts ltttcist 7t m Iilitt a(1 t'. Id. at 113. ii. 81 . 30. 1Fcr a Niric'f f-srip1.io1 of the ci xi!-law role on owsnersh ip acid the I I .T'htis C laissifit OHIO[)4 i~s Uised f (kTllt ~ cciittt'tc atic Icasisteticv wsitlt prvt pitlhtlic tidal bcoundars'. seec the first article in this series. tCaithe at tif Ic's ill this '.Ini's. .5/tore antd Beachi. V'cl. 48. 'No. 4. October 1980. pp. 14-15. 17-18. 12. Smc of ' it tt-st- lands aicole - it)ct lt l(, piattlic . reg., filec 27.000-acte' 31. 1978 La . A( is, Nc. 728. � I., effvc'civc'v Jati. 1. 1979. Ptil .1, Rmnv itePtis-ati- Wildl ili- Ri-f igi -' Oth itt14rge rI'f (g('s itta t 3 2. "(Itt' 197 8 rev-i sicoir ' 'reptIod 44 es th Ic suifbstla nr t- (if Ar t icle- 451I of ti')( it.f ttlit iobli( nw %isit Ilill r41(14 ihi Mvisht lsgi itd Staic' Wildlife' Lo is iania Clix %ilI Co~d I of 1 87 0. ItI d Sies not chIanrgri' lie las'.' LaU-. isc-f itt( Iv 8144:44S) atd lt4 114 Ri t k~c'flivi Stit Ic Wi IdIi fc' Ref ugce Cis. Cod' Anti. art. '151 . disc ussioct . p. 47 ( West 1980). Article 451 Ili-1_50( if Iv,'). I) I ,IS. .iopra4. 14o444 5. at app l dl-fdi. of fihe Loci isia na Civ"il Code of 1870. ''together withl articles 450 1 3. '"Ile state wa s fUIt St settld III [ft-t Fi~taii v it 1694.1. ..[Tjfti and 452. mnakirig ihc' seashcire') common properlv, (i t e. cor-m 44 itllol was':s4 tertstal( bN d i Flan v44 et tot Spin b a pr-c'Ii minarN . wtI reyt o t4's . ha s itmained urich(anged in Louisiana since t he Coide of (of N 5thinbhit 3. I 7(62: ar( ri. fi5tlit- itcat' cit Prars. 1eli. 10. I 763. 18(18. It is in ict'll's toc ( note' that all three art, taken almost Fi:iii t 4 I i'cd ci 11 icii '4Bili ta it :111 ]and tilc'st of tw Iii'miller'( of file vi-'eba tcim Iron the insf i ilt-s of Ju4sti niant. inl wshilt thfie sam test M1issi ssippi R .ix ct . (of 1 tic' Ilici il i- R.is cr, of! L~a kc Maticrc'pas anrd oIf seashotre', 'lthe Ia cidl coveted hy fillc'bigh(est tidc- dutring t hi- olIf Lilkv otl' 4474414:11ti4 to kil Sea' ']'Il.lc'P cisitic ci of Loutisianat w tilteir sea sciit 'is Iaicd downti." ''r romn eri, Seashiore fin Louisia na. %f.t 441'. c itedtic ll~ IS bx Sptil to, F'ianIi- iii 18(00. ssas scilc hs 8 'lI il. L.. Rfi'.. 272. 2731 (193-1 . (1"owinfites omnitted.) Napileonlo-ii 4 thl I 'iii ic-laStec' fot fil ti-cr nilliont dollars ili 33. Malotc' &' Ausne-ss. T/ie seanid Legal.Si'niftca?(e of the Afeart 1803.'' Itel:4144. itt/lt. tilit 2. 2 1.it. 1L. Rex. at 4l-1,. (Fo"cotnoes Ifigh 111aler lmtt'itt Coa.41a! Boctiydar),Alappintg,53 N.(CL. Rc'v. citrnltt i.) 185. 20(1-2021 (11474) Itlciinaftcr cited as Mailoney &' Ausnc'ssj; 1 1, S.'c'c ''('1pil~culd lidulald:1( 844 B u dill:4 ', t lindc' 4 '1)14 ct iii 11: S0 1ore antd Breir/I, Vol. 48. No . 4, Oct oc'r 1980. pp.') 17.18. 'lil I 8,111kitiid S.t i ins' tfra - 3]1. S/tore and Beac/h, V'cl. 48, Nci. 4, 0ciobc'i 1980. p. 18. 1 5. 'Illi t ii's( triics' has vars iig cdefinitiiotis. The li'.s Army 35. Shore aitd Beac/h. Vin. 49. No. 4. Ociobcr 1981. pp. 25-26. (:4p, l' f Ettgitic'-t s dclitti's lt li i Nt including, "Swatnips. 36. ('onmment. supra. ncote 32 8 'Tul. L.. Rev, at 272. iaterslt-se. bocu, ;tttt sittillt ite fc':s.'' 33 (>1'.R. � 3'23.2(). 37. Id. ai 274. Iti Rol, v. Board of Cormt i.s.sioner~s, 2.38 La. 926, 932. 1 C. 1 .iiuisiia4l'xc :iastial Zoneic Crisis.''A.SB3P.-I N\ewu.slelfer. Deceirlbet 117 Sco.2d 60. 62 (1964). Ilie court rejectid the( defc'ndant lexec' 148.18 I L I li hc~ait cd 144 c' ia cxtl I-iit sutnm-nata rof t heextell b o ca rd's con ieittion 11144 I hi' seashore shiould h4' d-fintied as thc' six, 1iiss it us'el~tidtsiiithestiti'. wsc'i x44('(-pied ftoni .4quaiiole.i.srpoa,'ocrtal oee b) the highest tid-s of the'year." 'Louiii ii:1: Stijuic Ujimisi S' ~5 i l! VItt.0 Issiti' 3. A4 tg nt 1981 - It c'ca usc'that wtiu Id in effect rrvwri tri'heCivilI Code provision , ''a itlitfi a444S Tiplei 1.4 ,tisialiti hi:ts '11) pv(C'rcerof ciill] dii' %%'i't1:iols, bil l preyogatixc' ftat bloccngs . .. to thc' legislatitre.'' :444444h44'4 solve444 pwtls th- 51:4 t 's s)lt , iie l4 abcit i 25 ;wc'Ient . ('onm' 38. (4m men t ,suo ra , iiotc'32. 8 'ttu. L. Rex-.at 274-275. Sec Buras v4. mlc-iti .4failr(4 oit, 2, 567'l ii!. [.Rc's. at 100(7. .Saltinivcir/i, 154l ,it. 495, 97 Si. 74811923): A/organ? ,. Nagoidis/t I17. Id. :4 100(7. 40 L~a. Attn. 2-16. 3 Sol 636 118884. 18S. 1 tid4t4 :i 4c(41444 iti t (on itiisi'. Iiti e ''tlantds in ili',t- Aiihtfa~lyxa 39. La. (:ix-. ;C-oi' Atil. at-i. 451, disk fissioni, p). 47 (Wt'csi 1980). KIisiti. 'thei laligc-,i iiid intent rificiiitti osc'tflicsv sSwamp svsciltl ili 401. Bruninig N.- City of Nec, Orleants, 165 l~a. 511, 115 So. 733 (1927); Nit tIc A41144- I( i4.'' :4' Ic, '144- pitc'i'tvi'c iti iicit pilc'tills:4'' Id. ZelIer N. .Southernt YachtI ( h/, 3-I La. Atm. 837 (1882). Bitt oilier :il 1(444 II II 1(41(. 'I lit pl~tiuilI' ( cit [o 4( pcin emit ct filei liasili 144 II I cast's scc-In link mtiterial with this holding. Swee Rous~sri %. Grant. op i~c't-t II~ it), Ill(pidhic . andc ),4l1( Iltasi 0', :tiic donat~tionto Ictlwi Staftf' 14 0ri. Appj. 57 tI.:i. 1916); New Orleattis I-acid Co. x'. Board of of ;if Ii':is WI.0111 :ic it-S. W,. at 1009-l10l0. Sec also ''L.ctiisimia's LeItcc CotIi'T8, 171 Lit. 718, 132 Soi. 121 (1931 );AMt/ne %. Girodeau, ( ootstal (i isis.'' -Sit/ca, 11444 Iti, :4t 1-2. 12 Li. 32-I (1838). Seie also not(e 42, infra. OCTOBER 1982 21 II (omlt intt. "'Pra, t 32, 39 27.5. Woitnrntt- omiulitd'i) flU 11 W))I). ri)I'1 mi n'h.,-,ippc 2:1 I.i. 1. '118 l)i 7o2 '11 .'7 , Lou1i51ittlil Sl1iII-Fiv Cou has- prolbablls hiatt iniluiji-ted it OtN i'mlt -1i~d loiiiid ditttll' llt-.IiC 1151i~ 11 5(005 II p~~lop'tis lii, dcisl: ilils l Ihc hi'itsll al ot'igitt of dtill ,5oNtlvi watet wIith II. lljlaiI'dl.g.illsi till' 51,11 0..Iiflitti li'i .' tIill,7 illfit Ibid. IFls-Jl loll "li'lled.)llI'tl ~pr f~h'(il f\i'l(i Idt ro1 I16 11111''o t, 1Iiils li It t dcin' j ii(iidia 12.\Xe~'f " tI'ao tlau I(n, C. I. llnard of L.el'ee, C'orn'r5. N up a. 171 IIt 6C. /it. mr177. (pultiilg fill (urll (1, Mr so 17'So 2 it '1891 718. 112 So. I-1. SIIc hole 1) pa adaFman i tst lioliljion'illlid.) IP.I ri Xl'tt VxI I-Ptionl ;I Igttaihi tIn(Ies not applN to tite' open tolast ii.Id. at 178. qullltillg (.ull (l. suilra. .11 Sn.`d t 811 ~uznt Ilel at15 i vIll is 'Istm itlls )oh se- lantd bordering on Lake Poritchart ta in otot t tt'ii I atiiilo Aof1Il~ig th .il uf. I'li ('urt st-erned [to holdl that Lake' 15. Ibid. Ponll liairtrairi hmlIlluli ti' teate'd as a lake instead ofisanattalit (if lifi. Si-'cr 1iis. Stat. � 11.170)1 (Sipp. 1)182,, pitnlding iii pinlt: thwaw. tloltilg lii'tilt ''inournal tidal 5'at'ationndoes inotexccet'.'d I '' lii'bd~ils iid liiollt i )t ill tiali~ablli %Nwitei aid tilw titik, ,il of 5ill liciIs.' 171 La. at 723, 132.So. at 123. The court stated that shicmso lu bss, iliits i w'a ;id ii 'i ')I .ll.'i . the t's'atet lintonits ni both salt-water tidal lakes and fresh-watler long to lic stall .iitd fiw poiie: N ) hiis siti . . . taudt inlatdtilkes aite nwncid III the state to tile hligh-wa,;ttr otark" iltise lantds till waltir hifiltllits . . shAall iit Ci' Inns tl.d adiillln- bI III, iten rid a Io(I)ItSt''1' tod , best inst IIIlI IIIIpII itill 11,1 igeItoI, mIis ItII , 13. Walontti &- A.\iisnss, Nuipra, notte 33. 53 N.C.L.Res'. atl 202 it. 132: I vaictatinit atd nit-i maicttess ,. 'i' Sr tiI,, I a. Ri's'. Slat. A\llsni's. fLand I n'e otilrojIN in Coastal Areas.N 9 Cail. W.L. Re','. 9:2:1I1I-2:117 (Sitilil. 11182). delinitg Nsuilt J-Ixpiciss fii ls ., I 1. It tidint il k. lu/ra. utime 28. at 3. See also) Note, 1I'aler~s (1711 plisllineiti of nis aiithlinid pt- l ibic fuim till ir pu11(1'v nf Ihv I iternt wi-~paiaoRi'ghtls-'Ace~s.sion.i. 29 Tuil. L. ReN.. tt :162.:363-:1fi1. O1. Contitttvit. ilprlt. tutu 60. 27 i NiI', lRi'' . t[ 17)1. (Fintitcit I1il law, <ii i rlireILililt-or the gradutal recess i1n)(1 nf inite' o1111 iili'll) iii1,1i1i111tclad.lain-r''ladtne1otapl'i thde ''Liinsiatta, bvi girtirlIN InlioNwing tlil' Ri,iiia iliditit iii open11 loast oi ill waie'rindies held to be armis of the sea Sala ii as iprot-- lit' ,' has Ij luitllt-ti sssIcl ol iit'fiiiittg atd tillilitaitlling Lake Piitte'hartiain. Set Coimment, supra. note 32. 8TLul. L. Rev',. wIitat fill. Elnglish S vistttawlll IN auld l 'pu~blicl' r~lsI latids; thati is. at 27'l-27fi .lttltII IIg IlistItId Ill thelitu' Na Itil its sosI-lINI Igil I.11 liv Ijilt , I d aII', .5. N.\ew ()rlvioa7. Lantd Co. %' Board of Levee Con' rs .sutp Ta. I171 La. aiii rg Ill t 5 lscep1111lii of m~ic v- t~shi p itt .1n p inSit' ilti ill. Is .1 718, 1:12 .511. 121. prope'r stiject ltr til- public1 ltitst, [[ilollslnala (%ii (:le ,\rti- I6. I friie'tnl: 6k. ip ra, note' 28, at 3. dI' 119di-filt's 'A nlilttlolt tialt'gs istitititratit till' hilgils.... 17. Luo ~ill atil Wrle au'ds Prospect us (Final Report tif fortmer La. Iit add it iont Arm Lii 15)1 dci ICares that 'pub1liic thilig s' awll tihois A\ethisolrN (nitr oi l~l Coiastal and Marine Resources) 1-13 ( 1973). ihar be-long Ill tliil [aitI . . . S1i'(h as . . . lilt- wsatlrs ;11141 bot- 18. f)EIS. liiprl. nlite 5.at app, f-I. totTIS of . . . tillct t 'lrriirJl I1 Sta, JtII thle lsll' . I~ahl cnltliri II9. bIbid. (IfI thi s [ pi t itlo'I ( I I rrI leli'rry is s Niteb IL rat I.%- 'lI It rltflt I ' I I ottt'tl I I I vI N It '(I1 5)). 1)178 I-i. A( is. Nl. :16. I 213.8. itt' %tali', it is hclt-lt utrtis' for the' 1list-iif (ilt-' Indi/ll of till' 5 I. FinlmIE ti; 'rlilliii'7 hia I mpatIl Statement a nd Loulsiaz ta Cniimial stare . ... It Is, 1(1111 it Il II(I i I hi' pI IIIl It' list, anI d Hat I,(fle 11 a i flestin ri l1Tric~ra tit hurei nafte'r citled as FEISJ 53-5-1 (Ctidtel ine' tl1st. foir putblit lIest' . .. .' (irantllt'i siipra, litile' 6127 1151. 1.7(s I )Jf180) . A spec' i fic guideline calls for erosion as-oiea nce iii Re'' at I17- I- 175. oll t Ill ies mi-lit tied: tIll Iila sis addud Il-l rile' design, tI: onstrlltiitl~ arid maintenance of mineral explora-Frfirltrhi'islli(Itt'jiiii'1(tllirltil[.10' tioit attd lprlllim tioir flat ilities. III. at 63 (Guidelitne 10.4). F r f r h r ii isoso l( ulclati(,til i ~lii 52. Sit' thei tIllsclISsln if "I''1pands'' tUnder ''Title to Lands Within ana. wi'thl cinIpllsiN )in the' 197.5 (;ulf t')ldvll 15i(o. 51'vvI~lrINitii'e the' Coastal onte'' atlilt nties, 2, 1.5-19. suprea. ,Svoipemiun: Properiv: thmtti 3a'8 La;. [.Rc'',. 71. 81 it. lli2ttoHatttd 53. '1. isiria'% Coiastail Zotu, C~risis,'' stupra. note 16. at I .1977): Note :1)1 l.iLe ,' (1)I ( 1)76i; : liamittloIl lll,)s ll'rk iif ~5 11(11 I ppe I/att (ii iis rfti - I 171.,7i: ProiplrI v; Com prltiott Pubic b lo an 55. Se'e the' dis fi issioIn IlIf laie' (il ort's 1979 decision tInder 'Title to 68 i'See TS nore an .3)1 laf, Vi. Ret o.:21 liii 1981.7t112 L.ands Wlhitt [lit, (:,lasslal zone", Nljpra. 8 e hr n 1(1i.XI. ).Nl .Arl18.1.21 5 6. Cotttrneni. 7(1/1r51, 1111 21, 56 1'ttl.L.Rev.' at 1008. tFootnloil II)1, Svc' S/ore (1d7B11 l laC/. V',l. 5)) No . 2. Apt i lI)182. plp. II- 12. 57. lb tiedi 'IIttit'IlittltStali181L.At. o.11ls 70. Sce .5hore and lBlaIt, Vol. I)), N o. I. (5011c 1)182. pp. 27-28. 5 .[bl. iotovoiv i v so18L. Rs.N.1W E-.72. DEIS. oipra. hoic 5. at aielli. ti-I. :%Anfiorig olther fa, lots: i'll' 8. For Some ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1lin~itest~in Kit Itb oisiaatatal short' s 11ii no tlianl as rIluIlI for rinlre' flreri- 58 F i 511W lltiI~ iri I t 'gro utd oilt the Lui isia na lwhe'f VIrt I )75, seevt-Yrtl~llianoolm~is. Wi'rk 41%foAppellate .ut-0(- 'l 1.'Itilii Itiler111l1ion li~lls(t. wrttil.Iiljii PrrPertv' Ml'ib Thm1li iqis. %'fatiga ble Wali e rbolttornn . 32 La.L. - as flrhtotr i rn g ..' ''iji Jp111IraphN1 has fti ~imci d a eIa ru ice' I on Re%. 172 ( 1972); Validitv o(Patents Conve~~in water acce'ss. lictttIe' . grear liilliier (If bilat lauitt'l' h : .aird N\a; a gable I laerbiol fools-A-it 62 of 01"2. Prce. Carter, and 41 '. . .a kick t f bathiling heatlie's anti beac h filtiir ites M.' I.at Thait. 32 1La.l..Re',. I (1971); 'ia11 ilui115.Cornmnon . Public. a p' 1 d- 1 -2. an(d lPrit ate Thml ; in Lou ins.1 ijana:1 Civilaiani Tra diti ol a nd Alod 73. Se'e ''Tirt'll to Lantdls W ilthi il il' Co a stal Zonlie.' anld 'Ieltrin i na - em Practice. 21 la.i e, 19()61 otnin.stra 328tin oif TIitlal Blillazs. tpra. 1riil..Rev,. '272. 74. A 1973 slate reportir ont ludes. Althouigh rut'- i'iasial Zon (lit'l 59~ Th publc Intl doc rifle whi(h hasits oaigin n thevarlyLouisiana has crulail landtlaliid wAater areas inhtrinsit'alis suitiale "19. n at liuiil lswi troidiin ef111' that' Ili'i ptublicriain il rit' arl for recrealiort. larty o~f these' areas are unsale ~III for it'i raljioll Roman (j', i Iliss frlis l~t s tneffect llal th litillit' ils theliglltfltt luse fqi iti Ilep ublic M(l lilSi' ii les. As ristil. pt 111d lItililid to 1151 lalids it-t italiii tida w~aters for a t'rltaill pluirpolss, siu h jasrw olsri ulofItvtoa lfil iltm usll tile' Illili t rulst thH irnto st t .,Retre little lilI, /Ii VIII. IX. Nii. Prspcts .sipra 1u'7..i 2(69. NtIlltltrol1ls ttttorntllt'ultlIionsl Octobehr 1981). pp Is-8 9We're' tnade by lilt' fo~rmetr oillsianat~ A'Xci ,,)ilrs'v. C tliriilsiioli I 110. Comme1 net r Tie Public Trtist Dottrinte a.% a Ila~ti fur FEmt iron- Co~astl. Mrilifil' Rt'slr l' ill to1 le ast' publicll. '5 Il. at 269)- me'ntal latitlatinn 10t I~maiius nha. 27 L~os1.L.Re'', - 1ll 177 ( P)H81 7,''It riir)tts.CatlI~~ i' 115 tll'~ ii ~lii ( otrli'tlll~~,Ilt ase' is repoIIrlted at 3171 StI.1d 576 (Itill- ana harrier tslandttisa I51 issiliv ll' u highw-aN .rird Is Imptiortant as .i fied on rehtea rrtmg. 3 I S11. 2t 580 (1975). 1 I"tt tid 11111 ifl . . . lit. at :1)2. ill.Priste Iiiltirlt .ist'rttl irli' lllrI~rg Act(12 f 192, wich75. 1)178 L-a. Acts, No. 361. � 213,2(11): see also ill, � 213.H(Ci (101 6~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l'ilir 1 iiLe g(al fir i ulI hlldiLle "elliprulghnt L(I f 191,wI oait li est' gidt-lielresi. Fleii aflowsss lilt' silitt but six vears tol me'ltncentt ittiotlit)t annrtll a .uCt now Coldified iii La-Rev. Slat. �� 1)1:213.1-21:1.21, was p)alir' ti ii55lt'it.' bv ilet si.i It'.-ic itat' e a gent it's argiltd . .. ha(t ilie amended in I 979 tI id 1980). p)i%;I a me'i-la im ttls too ld not1 assert o wnler ship offetr tile' lbeat oIf i t 7(1. FEIS. .te no 5 1 ii t 13.50. ira',~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~7 Gidahe liner101. Ibd 'tttli' iirt'.17. l"ejl'it t I(() itrills fort on~lsiiiration lof tie ''t'xilento(f inlpalt is 62. Ibid. I 'he puiblici it'-lst iiit It ri li hail fir st Iite't adto aiaIt'l I I strs ton aIa,' gi (1huIrig.ton f ling pbicii'at tess'.inil ree re'a r tliI a~lt it' Itilt's' eatrlier fin State %. leftise'. 3lI I[La. 11)55. 1:12 S4).'-t1 928( 1)611I. Id. at ill es-alu titrg whuethr ra piropolsed oastal ionet'ist'( oipttliII' will) 176-177. Prt",'liouslN, ili C.alifornia v. Pru e. 225 La. 7(16. 7 1 So,2d I tile guidielielris. Idl at 52.53. '22 SHORE AND REACH 0() li( .1i11 4 IIIp lil1t- Still. 19$Is. Jwiiis mois isiit is al N11A-2,It" I I I a I It7 l., Io.-I (s I . 1 7AI F , o,-I uIII,:d'i Lni.pux.SintIF S %%2l l-2LII IIm fShold litJ. I ihn.(1 I iv Iv 71)5~j meu lintatlitiui( and Lif~i'. II ilI . I.,I- is is 11 wlifI% Jill, oiii (il.itl 79 S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ls gIiitilii us tIIsu Ii lI lI'.. ii %I muc ttuI I itito itj1,1i t l1 w iI t(o)lm II' 'll i I tif lu, II)I [N 77 lit- Nil, IF I it. 1.,itri. it Fe] mt ilt I jo2li. 7$.jdlBona in t ....% I1 71.DN R sI5x a Juimnuri lt Stu ti1 (Ic ali.1 81 Iu it uiliotm -II us uI 707, (,hu-pp Illi 982 ltIit% puth Nlitii-a s is 99 Io aW. 197 IrLniiiu I, MNi Ii 7. (. ,iidmL,-I Alra. R -nu i~nri . Situ,21 -2un 3. -jm , lcikii Iotul ju its miitul sim f tit In di tiihit s 1978 gI(I_ Ri-s 273lm L 976.Rc Jut-si III,il t`7tiltis1 lIii ip t l-siargie.n ']'it ,I- Itsi 1 10-1 Itt-l intlp 19S2).It htltitLi% is (i oasi/ i o (x i'ptioirutg: iauwdi- itn t 2 1 972. m f 1I i.iS.C. oa1151 (I oIulli. intliltw lIF'' lilt 1i1hill,-ut Iitl plici S, Li.m Imes, l nI Jicnsp. iiiil l~ dw f'tisuldi~ttid (abisoiil 'Imltd 1971d lIt its jItusst lot jut tct-Iast-cmll tiit tit(i( Ijlt-of halIt liiip riint-Itill ot'.c- lttinu-uit ' "tljI I Ictilpolul'.l I-i w apil271-275.1 Auoiut h-ga illntlot ;IItlgNst'lt- tha(]%iN ulit- csil hx~ilsilt tIlt Muxijln Bud titdr 111gI)I" ati['I .lilt IS 311-53 c .i. F all.%Ii~,tttn upniiplton ait-hll, Ar I15o I thil it din(it%( ncs ftilltus oti (.ininh, t i'I ttitz ." Id.i I I~i-rur.iptnt-8 i~ 2! 7it- sonot hi-lit]mrw 3S I115 and _s dc-% is. t I s 2~1-7littul l iAdu-on 8 Il" si I~i II 719.1B SutItIg Iout : '11hut'o plb- atlld it of Xlt oFlt- Is sti lil tsi ... chih qmwu orl Ii iilititl ii iiti taia 71 ii i2ti Iii It tIt Li Ri-s I S) i ( 36)if)ad I I' I it i&- um I inud- r i lllcal gov(kit-tdn-ns iOvIrI ;ilu S\rIpt II ltil.lo ltrald $6. tit-i I trilftI IitsS~u. 54:131q1 1 Sijj. 9. littit 'dI. it ;fl, -126 7.Si. I tIS. c2:11a IS no pun itrt I. aII F.1: t-tstnI II I Iif a Ii I II tiut tIFssI IIIlilt t c)ift tI (ill 1)I " lI I s(I N ic] alt Ii md gumIFdi-lints I fitit Sh Jim1) IIt.N t Iti 91.2 L a IaIs ..Rts AN 11i L7J-m71I. I8-29 nd IIIt~ ~o c tIttttl I I II )1981 tI- JIisi liltttaI IR I IIINdIII i Ift inpla ImItdu I 11 tIt ,Ji-tillji. flloi I udrl Oiw (;ollivaiuocrt arid Coastl (d 117.1, 2latIttt9- I1. l ial . m hIl l %-tst ghall d tInit-t i( lu li~ iiio sI itt g..t liii a 2 711/l in 197l6.01)i. I I-(Itgl; lolieFla.'ls llJui..t-.87.9-)lit ( I f %c. til1111, 1sthtiI firstlu aiijtlAN'm ill Ii a uii g( omit S1ini,N a fii %sil Lis 92 opttl s i-ttimt. 1ali IN 1977 lite ofillu f-drialtif rt-tlgalui/2tiiMal. I. alF11fil(ia poltoL.DplI 'Imp adDt .)11 Lolisialmti lnit sutittliol orc-d'I- Han fill aiitts Ilmi ioI sidus in ist-d 87. FllS. upily. landl ro. t alili.la dvco m-1sbe I.lili~ a Id.I ti 27 mu-2 5 Als no thi I0t-ga ttni on~ I o/071/-lo sI'(n lh10 ti ritz:a 8$. 11ton Sntalk I- 1981.a B ilirotighdr I.;f.R IS. 19. 1111-- 1121(1 hu-n. niaenagu l-er io.unpimn. ictudl 1. At11 .io 18.7 OCTOBER 198I nrPauIIn z 1 g rttI f1 %it1 a.III)( tI2 23 t- lIgb ( aI otL uIi udfISoIISS),I III 1lttt-i The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part X: The North Carolina Approach RN, PETRF. I .F. GRABER Office of the Attorney General. istate of California San Francis~co, California A PE.N DULU ' SWING toward preserval ion o~f natuoral within today's state boL indariis was a (ha rrervd pio- resources - and away from n i ie develop- prietorshtip.11" mllelt - is (INidenced itt Notrth Carolina's c on- fIn 1777 thle newly I ndepende'nt state proN idvdt ['rI thte temporary law of the coast. disposition of lands [lot lprekiou~sIy con ~cyd by tile During the 1960s increasing tourism, second-homne English crown or tite c ololial proprietors. 'Under thiTs COIStruC6ion and newv indistry began to have a pro- state procedure - known as ther en i r-;tnd-grant niounced effect on soiiie ofthe state'sl)barrier isla rids a ad statute i r atpris olIcaiattl aati ) sailtriiarshe-s.' CriticsNwarnied ab~ouittheloissof anid dam- lic land by corrply intg with statutory rcquit-niremels.1" age to estuarine areas.2 Manyv coastal wet lands, such as ina~rsihes, bR-came pi- In 1972 the voters resp~ondud iby approving Izi sat wtdUtnder this law. wh jictdid notd(ist itguisit 'Environmrental Bill of Rights'' antlendmen t to tile betwveett estuarine and other typ~es of ladirc. Ini 1823 tite state's Constitu~tion. -rie amendmenC~t deClareS the stales North Carolina Supreme Coturt held that thils a(t (lid policy to ''presers e . .. its . . . wet lands, estuaries, not allow private parties to gairt title Ito lands utiderly- beaches and places of ibeauty."I inig navigaitle waters.11 Two vears later, the Tarheel State enacted the Coastal Ini 1959 tile entry-and -grant IN swilln was a b llished a d Area Management Act,' culnuinatitig ''10 yecars of effort replaced with a proceduire for dli r(cI sale Vitde lease of to develop a management sN sterm that wouild protect . .. sutae lands.'9 coastal resources and y-et permit their wise and orderly dev~elopment."'' In 1978 the North Carolina Coastal Matnagerrient B. Tidelands Programn became the South's first federally approved coastal p~lan , attd Iin 1981 a a extensive Reach Access Upon tile signaiit of the D~eclarattion of Itttielettd- Program was init iated." ence. onl July .4. 17716. Nort-Il Carolilta. as otte t ii the original states%, betartie thle owner, itt trtlst, of t idelands~l TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN ~~~withiin its lborders.-" There Itad lbeen no blanket grant of THTE COLANSTA WITHNE tidJe-fiowed lands into private ownershipi (lurming tite THE COASTAL ZONE ~~~colonial period, conttrary to thle practiet' in Nlasiachti- -File North Carolina ' ~ ~ ~ ~s catlae,'sdfidilSetts.21 H-owever. one legal writer has notled that somne The Not(aoias'coastal Area Mn e''tAt f174 asdfned ett g SuIch lands ''have been sold or gratnted by the state and the Casta Are Mangemet Actof 1748 nd dsig- can be validly claime ypiva e a'ds.- natied by the governor, consists of 20 counties.9 The area .b rvt ate. generally coincides with the state's Tidewater region.'0 .The coastal zone extends seaward to the I itnits of state C. Submerged Lands tI risdiction,' I encompassing thle Ourter Banks or h~arrier islands'2 (Figs. I and 2). The area also iticlutdes the rThe state's ownership of submnerged Ia uds sea ward to largest estilarine complex of any E'ast Coast state, " con- gerahcltis()fh,(at;wsonrmdi sisti ng of sev-en -oastalso(ttlltdi, a 1(1 the adtjoininig land~s. 3gorpia tiI' f h os a nf ue l F'or con~ etitence. thle state's coastal lands mnay b~ t~itat ter tlNtc(oattt'st' 1110iorn divided in t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Caolin p rids, tafe idelan tt Cadsutere lds.t andcttrl'ves tharaleon ~ the3-i t'Iin itwa turned dowti by the U. nited States stupretrte Court ill A. Uplands 1975."I Along the Atlantic Oceatn, 1,18 trifils of North Caroli- . iii ..... t,'rila r.. I~t ......iai ....~' ..... tia's 308 total iniles of shoreline are in public owner- rapii d r..... ii i. li,,d, iai.ant'rag,.,p.. shpip.' I other port iotns of t ite coastal zone, private .... (,~ gii h,,,I i I- ,, t. t-,,,t,,,,,, -b .. parties own thebu)0k of thetuplands. Mans of tiest'titles Ot.'xia.......i. \taaftii.,. 'a.g t- ,'~.....%iati (late back to the era front til66 to 1729. when the area ,;;iai , 1" ".. ... la SHORE AND BEACH Fig. 1. Aerial view westward of Fort Macon State Park, North Carolina, located on barrier beach at Beaufort Inlet (April 1969). Groin system in foreground stabilizes the inlet- shoulder (Corps of Engineers photograph). Fig. 2. Aerial view northward of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, in early 1970's. Grassed area in foreground is an artificial dune (Corps of Engineers photograph). DI)TERM~IN ATION OF TID)AL BOU ND)ARILS T he ((II I ri sratt' Hill thu "Ilihi.l-AN~mel i nu k''" b)oundary "is g(twi'tdlly C olfpuiii' its a it a II1 tt rav('taigv high-tide, A. Upland Tideland Boundary antd ti Io titi 11(w 'it Iwight of tIh u t~ . and cited its stliplun I for itsc (on( Ilusim)f Ilw I !..S. sIJi~t-Ile(, ourt's 11) (fItIIIIIItt willi Iluist uoasistl slawls, N01t1 l ;tlt~ 93!')oIuitIrIo it ilit BUf\TC1t Il lu)(tclorestevis that has Xiclpwdt ;I high-xvth't legal bl)(t dlt(ltt I GoICt tt .lveli r~i t(~iiin ECt)shi'l't1(.(1f- liplaudsl'knld nldtlillids. litl'l 87 Ihu stal's .'Siltipwim l~ittun 'sm use oft lidal daltitiit bas(-d oil ;t Ine-all of all the ( ~ui Icliiidel ita; indr io cili ~ati-gtttt sl~titc', high tidl(s twit(. att I X.6i-yea ptt iid ill Iett iling the %N'tIjIt Xj(,llt(hi(jfll] ntJ llii Itighj~i-tile lilt..2'. T11w .5111(" li-gisl~tioiu agoif(s Nwih the( (its(- law4. A 1,11t 1i ulx l k(. Iiton xs~ls tt4tllIIIIII-tIlli 1970) ill (Cfof- 1(7( %ulatm. ptoxidis thiat. ill gitietull "Jijin' "saward Ine flicel II /,I h elg Piet v. Towtl ol (a fhttt.Ua( ?." ' ofiiil Ii all p )topetlt V. Ill) It I 'stvd bx, t li State, JANUARY 1983 19 which adjoins the o(ean, is tile mean high water that "the extent of the plublic trust ownership of North mark."1' Carolina is collt used Mand u llcertain."4' One source of this unt(ertainty is the question of B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location of whether the state's public trust doctrine al)plies to the Shoreline marshlands.45 Int thiree alparently contradictory cases, the Parmele decisions handed down between 1938 arid In general, North Carolina follows the usual rule 1952,46 the state's high court "touched on the tmarsh- ttlat both accretion and erosion cause changes in the lands problem but avoilded the issue of whether tidal upland/tideland boundary." In the Carolina Beach marsh could be protected in the same way as foreshole case, the court, when referring to the landward shift of [tidelands] under the comiimon-law ebb-anld-flow test."47 the legal boundary resulting from erosion, displayed a Applying North Carolina law, but also relying on literary flourish. Herman Melville's AMoby Dick was cases from other states, a federal court upheld the rights quoted in the holding that a private claimant's "title of hunters to use the shallow but navigable waters of a was divested by 'the sledgehammering seas . . . the coastal sound for hunting and taking wild fowl and inscrutable tides of God.'"32 game. Defendant hunters had placed their blinds in A 1959 statute, allowing an upland owner title to waters over shoals, and plaintiffs, claiming to be natural and certain artificial deposits of land adjoining owners of the shoal lands, sued to enjoin the alleged his parcel, provides in part: trespass. " ..If any land is, by any process of nature or as the The court, after finding that plaintiffs had not result of the erection of any pier, jetty or breakwater, proved title to the shoal lands, held that even if that raised above the high watermark of any navigable determination were erroneous, "the defendants had water, title thereto shall vest in the owner of that land [the] legal rights to use the waters for hunting wild which, immediately prior to the raising of the land in game as an incident to the right of navigation of such question, directly adjoined the navigable water .... 3 waters, or as a right inherent in the public."48 However, this statute was narrowly construed against Following the enactment of North Carolina's Coas- a private claimant in the Carolina Beach decision.34 tal Area Management Act of 1974,49 "areas of environ- And the court in another case held that a private upland mental concern" (AECs) along the coast were desig- owner cannot gain title to previously water-covered nated by state officials. The act specifically recognizes land that is reclaimed by artificial fill."5 public trust rights, authorizing designation for inten- Erosion is recognized as a serious problem along the sive regulation as AECs those "waterways and lands North Carolina coast. The state's Coastal MIanagement under or flowed by tidal waters or navigable waters, to Program notes: "A recent inventory conducted by the which the public may have rights of access or public Soil Conservation Service indicates that... some shore- trust rights, ...'" lines [exhibit] an erosion rate of 20 feet per year."36 The The North Carolina Coastal Management Program program classifies as "ocean hazards areas" those "areas defines "AEC public trust areas" as "all waters in the along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline where, because of coastal zone in which the public has acquired rights by their special vulnerability to erosion or other adverse prescription, custom, usage, dedication, or any other effects of sand, wind, and water, uncontrolled or means," including both estuarine waters arid certain incompatible development could unreasonably en- other inland bodiesof water.5 danger life or property." PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS T In 1981 North Carolina's legislators created the Coas- PUB LIC TRUST DOCTRINE tal Beach Access Program.52 Its purpose: to acquire, improve and maintain property along the Atlantic Ocean for a "system of public access to ocean beaches."5 North Carolina's Supreme Court was one of the ear- Legislative findings included: liest tribunals to articulate what is now termed the public trust doctrine.8s An 1822 decision39 was a precur- "... [T]here are many privately owned lots or tracts of sor of later, more detailed judicial recognition of the land in close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean . .. that concept that the public is entitled to use tidal waters for have been and will be adverselv affec-ed by the coastal navigation and related purposes. And in 1828 the state's hazards such as erosion, fhooding and storin danmage. high court extended the doctrine "to include lands The sand dunes on manly of these lots l)roidc valuable under non-tidal waters as well as those included under protective functiors .... the ebb-and-flow rule.'"0 "The public has traditionally fully enjoyed the Thile United States Supreme Court's landmark 1892 State's ocean beaches and public a te(ss to and use of the Illinois Central4' decision on the public trtst was beaches .... Public access ... is, however, htcoring quoted with approval in 1903 by the North Carolina severely limited in some areas .... Pubtlic purposes court in Shepard's Point Land Co. v. Atlantic Hotel.42 would be served by providing increaset-d access to ( ean 'The state court cited the Illinois Central language ''"that beaches, public parking facilities, r otherer relateld pub- the state can no more abdicate its trust ... than it can lit uses....'54 abandon its police powers and the preservationl of the peace."43 The Coastal Resources Council arid the Department Despite what appears to be a clear position on the of Natural Resources and Community Development public trust doctrine, a legal scholar recently admitted are charged with administering this new access pro- 20 SHORE AND BEACH gr ant AS I mi llionbond isstecis funding Ithe programIn lines formulated by the state."''T A newly created state Sevetal y'cays before the enactment of the Coastal ageti y. the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), is Beath AccessProgrami,ithe acce-ss issue wAas addresse-din charged with designating 'certain geographical areas the North Catiolina Coastal Management Program. of lands and waters ...as 'areas of environmental Thata pi ogi am's goal wvas "to insure adequald'access to cond nn' JAECs] wvithin which development is to be the pub] u( beaches in coastal waters in at manner which (lost-IN regulated.' ,' The state St pt ere Court upheld is nto denirnenta I to the delicate beach crivironmnivil CAMN A's onsmt tiola lity' in 1 978.75 an( d shiich sauisfactot ilv allocate's suche access among (AMIA and] otheri state laws serve as the basis for the 0111 ;)('t ing t vpe(s of uses'S North Carolina Coastal Management Program, which Whtile North Carolina's legislative and administra- received F'ede'ral Government approval in September five bt anches of government have recent ly expressed 1978. The program fol lowss a twt,o- ti matntfageme'nt (oth(cinIabout publicbahacste ttsa(~la( apn o1aClh, With the stale and loc al government haVing cotits ap paren tl% have not rei ),-ionfron te-dAwith access diffetrent roles depending onl the nat ure of the area)16 questions. Consequently, such judhially declared legal conctepts as Oregon's cuslomnar) tights doctrine", and California's implied dedication iheorys "have not yet ACKNOWLEDGMENTS been applied to beach lands in North Carolina. ''9 One reason for this apparent lack of judicial interest The authoi is grateful to Todd Llewellyn of the is, of course, the fact that so much of the state's ocean- Department of Natural Resources and Community front land, such as the Cape Hatteras and Cape Look- Development, State of North Carolina, for providing out National Seashores, is in public ownership. How- some of the source material cited in this article. ever, the courts may become more involved in the future if beach access issues arise along the privately owned portion of thle coast.601 REFERENCES PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS 1. N~orth~ Carolina Coastal Atlanagerment Prograin and Final Envir- o1n tontail Intpa .ta ene I lo11`71't [IVIii laf(It JOVItt' 10 as NCCM P1l' In addition to the right to natural accretion6' private 6.1, t1t8t 11 (It978). littoral ownerirs in North Carolina enjoys a qualified 2. Svc. e.g.. various r('l)orts and stat('mt'tis ciol itt Rice% Estuarine of access to ~~~~~~~~~~Land (4 tsorth Carolina: Legal Aspects of Ownership, U se and right ofacs othe adjoining navigable waters.61 They, C ontoml 46 N.C.L. Re-%. 779 (1968): Woigan. Ott the LeFgal Asprac.s thus may c onstruct pliers, wharves and landings, subject of North Caerolina (:oa~vtal P'roblemt., 494 N.C.L. Re-. . 857 (1t97t); to legislative controls.63 Comment. lDefining ..at'itable W~aters and theApplitation of the By statute, upland owners may receive from the state P'ubli-Trust Doarine in North Carolina:,A History and Anal)'- casemnts i ad' oninglands underlying navigable %is. 49 N.C.L. Res. 888 (1971t; Comment, staiePluin easetents n adjing The, Deterioration (if the Oyster Industry in North Carolina. 49 waters, extending to deep water.64 N.C.L. Re,_ 921 (1971): Continent Environmenetal Lau' - Pre..- ertation of the Estuiarine Zone, 49 N.C.L. 9ti-1 (197 1): Comment, Entvironmiental Lau, - The Publit Trust Dortrine: A U 'seful LEASING AND REGULATION Too/ itt the, Preseniation of Santd Dunes, 49 N.C.L. R(-%. 973 (1971): Schoenbaum. Public Rights% and Coastal Zone Alanage- OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS mettt. 51 N.C.L. Rci. I( 1972). 3. N.C. Cocnsi.. art. XIA'. � .5 (Supp. 1981). A. Leasing 4. N.C. Get. Slat. � I113A-100etseq. For a briefldiscussion of thisac t. The state may lease "any and all mineral deposits...s--"esnadRglto fosa ie - tdsn Wttersa. which maN be found in the bottoms of any sounds, 5. N(;CMP, svpra. note 1. at 64. t ivers, creeks, or other waters.."65 Similarly, leases for 6. N.C.Gett.Stat. � t113A-t31.1 r t seq. (Supp. 1981). For a bric-l dis- the cultivation of oysters and clams "'of the public bot- cussion cit this program, si-c 'Public Arc ess Rigttts," infra. tomsuzidrl yn g oasal fshin watrs' mas be ssue.66 7. iThe' North Carolitta Coastal Area Manageme~nt Art (CAMIA), torns uder lyngcoasal fisingwatrs" ma be isued.61N.C. Gcn. -Stat. � 11 iA-1O00el seq., use-s the- words "coastal area" In -addition, leases of vacant and unappropriated lands instead of ''coastal zone.'' the term emnployt-d in the federal Coas- and marshlands are authorized.67 la] Zone Manapgement A( t of 1972. 16 U.S.C. �1451 et seq., and iti nmany of the- other state-s' coastal actis. One- writer expltains this B. Regulatory Functions stattttorN use of "coastal area'' as follows: 'The conmton % iew that In 1969 legislators paved the way for closer supervi- 'zoning' isa dirti' word aipparently prompbt-(d ail atnonymous staff siot) of North Carln' osa oeb ietn h metaber of tht Istate-'s] Departmnttt of Acmintistratiott to sugge-st formulation of a proposed comrhniecastal man- l hsvral so1Aitg' yeat. A eslatt' Httr o /e s coml~~rehensiv tal Area Mattagentent A,'t, 53 N.C.L. Rev%. 345. 350 (1971). agement plan.61 During that same x'ear, '"the General 8. N.C. Gcn. Stat. � 11t3A-103(2) (Supp. 1981). Assemnblv also . .. enacted stop-gap le-gislation regulat- 9. Ptursuantt to CANIA. thegover-nor, by exetutitheordt'r on April 29. itig the dredging and filling of estularine land and the 19.74. dt'signaited tte- 20 bouttebndttnd either by thfe Atlantic alteration of sand dunes.""6 Occan orti a coa stat sountd tht con slituote the ''coastal area.'' chtoenbam,tm Thte Alattagemenr of Lantd and Water Ilse in the The' Coastal Wetlands Act was passed in 197 1,110 and a Coastal Zone: A Neu, Iau, Is Entacted in North Carolirta, 53 coastal management bill was first introduced in 1973.7t N.(:.L. Rev. 275. 283-2S-1 (1974). Finally, after a long legislativ'e battle, the Coastal Area 1(1. NC(:(:MP. sup~ra. tote- t.at 169. Mianagemetnt A(ct (CAMIA) was etnacted in 1974.72 II. 'Ilit st-awatit boutidat is define-d itt (AMA as bt'iit 'itt no event tcss tiatt ttte-c gcogtaphtical mries offstott'." N.C. G;en. Slat. � CA MA (onruines a plantng rcs inhargua It ISA 1t3(2) (Sut~pp 1981). Atttftli'i stattttc provtdt's itt part torN systlar. ' Eac h c oastal Countsf is! etquired to adopt a ''Tvlte t'astt'rtt toutidarv of thec Statc of Ntortht (atoitna is ht'rvl,~ land use plan subject to state approval and under guide- declared to be- fixed as it has always tf-cn at one- marirte leagtte JANUARY 1983 21 t'astward l (ornI IciSt -se I lott( fPI IIi -: IIt Alttii t ItL()( a II ... rnilils IIIt-ii 277 N.C. a I ' 11. 177 SF2i1 Ia(I 717 JwwNt T! r Img ioIo P, '2 H N(.C himitrdii' extremie low-A~ali- iiiaik. ' N.C. ( ,(it. StIl. � I Il-li. 681, tj)2 S.F.2d 75 ( I97(i) Si-i ,ilsi Rote, ilipra. nilw 2. 1 NC.L.. 12. 1 Iowcwmr, fi-dera~lv miwned (it I~ilsi-i I~l~ilds SoltI itis ('.aiti' I Litlivas Ri's . .tt 8146. atid Cape Looitkout Nairmartl 'Svitiri'cs iate' t i-litdid fion t Il- 12 Carolina Bra~oh l'isldon Pwr %. To'i0-oif Caro(,la 11each. S11pra. states L-iasial triana~gcent lin 1igimlt. NC(All", niipra 1it I I 277 N,(. tf 'if) I, 177 S F. 2dI i tl 57. 172, 2)IS 15-Ii 733 N.( C. Giit. stat. � 16 (i those of Alaska .inil Louiisiania. . . . in 'No Ill (Xiloiitia, [t'summirtc ratiher 111.111 lIet priralt- ir I'rs lisi' 1,lands hid teenl pirc'.ioll'IN arias ci'iiitttaiss5 uxut-nlit. L' otislal sounids,, sialt altarsltes. aidtt vi'td(1'd. Ca roltina I IacI Ft/,ihmtr fler, /I( . t . fiTownt of (Arolhila lirtati riser tttttrian ext cui-tilg 2.200(,0111 ;(1t ri-s." Rit e. Iipra. niote- Btc-cit, iiigpra, 277 NC.. it (tI-I 1,177 S. F. 2(1 ,ii 517. 2. -Ili N.C.1.. Ri's. it 779). (Fotitlitttes oiitlit(.) Sit' also Loittmttrtt. 3 5. flat- ~is .AforImc,) ?i 2'S8 N .C. 7 8, 1 I S.1E. 2 d Tt(7 ji 19;7). Itt i LiPitit. it WiPra, note 2. Ill N.C.L. RCv. it 8851-St00. is statotoril', pios tied: Ifamri lanil is, lit.1 at of mHarl. raii',d ,Ibois II. F-or C onsistet N, ss jilt ntior atit Ics ill this scaett', tidelands ire t(lieItigh ss-urerntark ofa Ila% ttigabll w~atir by fillittg. ext (-lit Sol( I (efitiet "As litilds IN tt. iii bot-s tt11 th liltes of nieal high andhe int-it filling be to ret leiitn lands ihitetofowi lost I lit i miieltr lit ntiutiai] low% water and scihtitgediladitti is ltttci Isuing svi'waltdiif tilt' Hillti L I 3115C5 ittS .1IIiCoherise prox ledIt .. t ItlIt dtlt-rtcr Is iti sIt Itt CSIn'IIII oif nieatt loN wafittr. Northi Ctrilitta slatittorv liw, hlowevit, Saeii ielti orie da!li tti lito h ~~i ii tiefitit's thev tcrtit "Subtiligt t'd landis." as, uisec itt titi' citapter of tliti ultappirtptjniatedlandttts of the( Stae. ititlliS [( ertatit plo i-dlirts ate (wenertI statutes relatitng to stile( Ilitids, as trtiatiring State lilitds followed]." N.C. Gcet. Stat. � I Ili-6gl) (Sttpp. P1981. heii'tttit ejtiier 'Ja[ i~t titaugai~cot, es (it'., "allI iat~ers which 36. N(:CNTP. Nupral, titti I, at 125-126. are, tiat~gable itt fct"t oit iJithe Atiattic Ocean to a dlistirite iif 37. Id. at 17.5. 183-191. three geographical mi l tes si twatd froitt the cioastlitne. N.C. 318. Under tins (ri~mmiit-laiw oittiept , file F)mnhli( is cr11 it Itdii toPato. Gin. Stat. � iI-,16 gate tcide-fltowei waters it tspeet t'v tf whither tile Otttid'1 it.itg IS5. N(CCNI P. sripra. note 1. at 120. lands art'pubith! iit.-J ptisiatt'lc tiwntd. For a brief Il'siscusiine-itf iitt 16. Like tite tither original Startes' latnds itid waeters, the atea tltat is oit ttli'siortinofu'tlirtiset'Shore and Ieac/, Vol. no(w withitt North (7arotlita wascelairttid hyrthe English crown hy Ill, No. 1. 0ctitberI 1980, pl).It- 1819. riightt of dliscstry L fci vMrtrin t. W I addel I! -I fC.S. ( I II Pit.) 36h7. WS1) 39. Otre iof tile rutjni ttttsiitder Nirtii Carioli ta's 1777 'taitutct I11842). creating clit'c( tr-nl-r systern is t Iiat thle tract of lii rd lie 'Ilit I (63 ChiarIt's~ 1 gra itted ito lt'e Loi rds Pci prie tors the landit suirve'. ci anrd that " tit' Water shllaI fo rm itte sideoi f the( Stui rv'V wh ich ccomprise Nirth ri ad Sotorilt (;trutlina. 'together w ith 1 ill and Ch. I. � I X., [1777]J N. C. St'ss. L. -16. The court ini Tator n v. -Saw4ver. singular pi rt s, ta rhors. haxS, r itc. r i isle's, a ti islets . . . oget her illp ra 9 N.C. 226. iiiterpt i' et! lthis languia ge it) thwrt tthat t iii with thle ro% al I v of ii hSea itjitin Itit-' I iast. .."'Ri:ce, Nsi/ira. nitte 2, statute hatl ttot itttettded to allow piriva~te parties ti) gaint title ti) 46 N. C. L.. Ri'v. at 7841. fFoot trote n itri it td.) lands cove'rt'd 13% riavigablt' waiters hecause those lattds andI waters Mots of t he l an titi i Is Iit Ni rtii Caroli tia are tilt itria tel wire necessary 'fo r lie ci ot. 'ti r-re 1sf all.'' hei ng Li onmi it deniveil fronti Ilii' I 663l gri nts to tire I[i intl Pri prittors. Thint' wt'reCliigh waN s. lei i.t 229. The i 1st'n imolsed lanrd thit I ad iiv'tn at of course. earlier grants. Sir Walter Raleigh, lin 58 I. aridr Sir sandyvbeach. subljrct to tlii' thu atid flowotf thr' itle, in 1807, when Rotbert H-eath. Iin 1629. re ti s-ti granIrs whilt it nt Ioied presen t tdefenitlan t's Litd wtia s g rantedtil lii t hat had becorttw a triarsit Itx day NorIth (arol inia frin tinrle Ctts'riw: brith hi i owestr, fitifei ted 189,te6n'of11 ttifsga.Th cttrtsidthat as a rttiIt if their grants ad nileitither passed t.al id t itle ito ant.- la nti in North tiIhis ph~ sica L liant rig fintlie i ha rac:ter of nlit' Iantd, it no lonrgir i~sa Carolina. tinr.Soe titles itt thle Albiemarlte Stiund regionr [in exempted fromt entry. northeastern North Carinlinal may 1il' tracti hack to grants front lO. comment, Stipra, note 2. 19 N.C. L. Ret.. it 901. The c ase. Wdtlso the London Coma itIiny w h irl (oloiitti td V'irginrtia in tiw' early v. Forbes. 131 N.C.I 0 I 1828). Li itierrted AIllirna It' anrd Pam!li LIo I 600's.'' Id. at 7S-J cr.30. Ste also R. Pitwill. I Tire Law' of Rral Sounds. The courit statitd theat bititose hese itt Iatd seas are riot Property. ir 60 at 186 (Ri's. Col. 111I soubject tot [lit- Fit-iii. thIte-, Woult d tit t he iici'ttrid tia siga hle ka cirs 1 7. Rice, supra. citte 2. 16i N'C.L1. Ret.- at 786: St htiebarnh m.5 supra. tinder thi' English corntnin lawand that they% wouild hei' te subjivet note 2, 5I N.C.L. Rev. at 8. of prit.ate ptniilxrtv . t. att 3 1-3.5. !Iiss-vr'te rthe souttits are trasiga- I1S. Tciturn t. .Sao'- Cr. 9 N.C. 226. 229 I 1822). hie by ieagoinrg ships, a iii rut' cast apipatnt'it1% was tihe first to 19. Rice, su pra. note 2. -Ilii N.C.L. Rex-, at 792-79-1; S( ltoerthaULII, sugge st that Norirt Ciro titra %%ould use tiavigahilitv bv ''sea %s-es supra. note 2. 5I N.C.L. Rev, at 10). sels'' as well as [lie liilal t'bb-atnd-fliw tI'%t il dtecirtminting 20. Mairtin t.. Wladdell, Nitira, II I !5, (16 Pec.~ 3:67. -11)8 Some North ttavigability. Carolina cases, lawi; antI legal writers tise tilt' feral ''fort'shttre'' II Illinois Centtral Railroad v Illinois, I I6fi U.S. 7187 118921. instead of ''tidlelands.'' Sit', eg.Carolina Beach Fts/riog Piter V. 12. 1712 N.C. 366. 1-1 S. E. 39 (151(17). Totvn of Car'olina Beacht. 277 N.C. 2517, 301. 177 S.E. 2t1 513, 516 43. Schrenbaumr, ittpra, otroe 2,.5 SI .C. L. Rev.' at 17. (1970). -4IbdSi'aoRisorac-oe2-6N... e'. it 801-80'. 21. Ftr a brief discussion tif ilte grants itt Massachusetis pitrsriatt to 45. ''Marshland" is defined in North Carolina's dort'dlge-anid-fill sta- thle colonial ordinance oif 16417. see Shtore and Beach. V'ol. 50. No. tute as 'arty salt nrarsh or oither marsh siubject to tlte regular orr I, january 1982. Ipp 13-I1-I. occasional flood inrg by rides, incttlutiting w i rid r ides (w herheror ntrii 22. Scliocnlianim. stipra. rioce 2. 51 N.C... Rex-. at 10. A 1965 statute the tidessacers reach the marshalard areas through natuiral tin arti- req uired ri'g i stratiotn of all privsate cla6imns of r itl It' t lands tticlt'r fir-ial IwsafIercoir rses). pirot. idt'id lthis slta Ilo tc riotli'l little hurica ne itt nav igable w~aters. lei., at II)- I I - trt pic a Is tont ltders."' N. C, Gt'tt Scat. � I1I7-2291 c (71). For a brivif 23. ((7 -Stat. 29: citiifitdill at3 '.S.C. � 17101 el seq. dlisecussiont of stittit tf tht' tirli' querstionrs ittiCo irning tillrshLiads. 2-1. United .State~s v. Maine. 120) 1.5. 515, 51 7-518 11975). fbi hittitrt see ''itlt' ito f.tiels Walon ilihit e Coastal Zone",' %fluir. relied tin C 'ntled Slates v. I-ouisiarra, 339 U.S. ti99 (1IS5S); antd -16. Parrmnele %.Eaton. 2 11) N.C.539, 83S. .1. 2d 931( 195 Ic~ Resort Deu-el- Un'ited States v. Tevas.5 339) t 7S. 7017 ( 19rt0). iopment C7o. s. ltritrele. 2715 N.C. 6854, 7 1 .5.E. 2t1 17-1( 19521; Iloyt 25. M( 'erztesN As'ecijtorsi v. Iligirl't I N.C. 613 1181 7,. Real Estate L~oan &t Icr iii antre Co. v-. P'a Tmele. 21 1 N.C. 637, 197 21). 277 N.C. 297, 177 S.E. 2d 513. S.E. 7H- (1938). 27. 277 N.C. at 3113, 177 S.E. 2id at 516. 17. CGirnitett. itt/ra, rititi 2, 151 N.(.L. Rlev, at 9411. 28. Borax, Ltd. v. Citv of LoNa An igele~s, 29i U 'S. Ito ( 51935). See Shone -18. Swan Islandi C:lab, lire, v. Fi/mte, I II F. Strpp. 5)5, I105 (7.). N.C. and Reac/t, Voii, -IX, No. I. (t titer 15)8O, ppr. 17-18. att] oel[. -19, 19531 aff'd sri/-i ler Swan ri-a slanrd Clu/b, bitt . v. Yarboroitgh. 2051 No. 2. Aprin 1981, 1i. 21. F. 2i 698 ( ;th Cit. ISIS I. Thte feilral] crial j udge ii ittitdt'd ihl't 29. The North Ca ro inta tout rr al sit iiteila (Citiforn ia Couirrt of'Appeal ' 'Ntrth Carol inta has not dtit- ietle t itt quetstiton of ifrlie rigirt (it1 t hi dci: s ion. People t. W int. K'enlt 7s fate Co,.. 2-12 Cal - A pp. 2d 156. 5 I public it) us tihiie ciavsigatbt' warfI er itsr pnsalt'!s-tiw )tited lattils, Cal.- R ptr. 21I 5 (1i566), txItit-l It iId s tha c tire houndia rs is ito be s'hi't her thley, nrua x-he itst'd fori hunitinctg as an lini t idi'rit to nt.-i ga decermined by tisirig the I S-sear ri'art (if thle 'high rt~ptitleues,'' cion. or whi'thi'r siri hright is ittittrt'tt in (t(ti pubrhlic - I 1- F'or a ritircisin of (lie Kent de( fsiotiv sie S/ore andl Bea(t/t. Vol. -19. F.Supp. at 14)3. No, 2. April 198i. pp. 21.22. 19. N.C. Gen, Stat. � I 13A-l00 eq seq. 30. N.C. Geti. Stat. � 77.20. See atlso N(:CMP. irApra, rtite I. at 24(0. 50. N.C. Gen. Stat. � I 13A-lI 1 3(b) (5). 31. Carolina Reach Fishing Pier v. Town of Carolina Beach, stapra, 51. NCCNIP. itt/ra, trote I at 181). 22 SHORE AND BEACH 5;2. N(. Gf - I. Stir. I �i I I BAl-M 1. I ci r q. (S I 1)pj. 1981)I 68. Sc hof-uhatim;. Autqrra, rtrir 9. 53 N,(:.I,. Rves at 280-281. 53. N.C. (Wn. Stat. � I 13A-1.-l.3 (Supl, 1981). 69. Id. fit 281.(iirroc niuttted.) Dic(lgirg and filling "in anN 5-1 NC. Gr-n. Stat. � I IM-I-.] S-1.2 (Stilp. 1981). r-srinitinc waivers. tidr-laids. land] marshlands" are regulated 55 NC Gr-n Suit. ~' I IMA-1.3-1.2 ISupp. 1981) undv,de ra*l stil( lj- N .C. Gen. Still � I 13-229. Pevriinrst-nus; he niba in .56 NCCMPI, ;ritfuo. uni- 1. at 121L St-i- also id. a;i 273: "Prosidirig frotri tire 11cparttmeti of Nattural Rei-rrirs and C~ommunirs- advrifrtftiIr ith-uI a; cf.s is an rihet rsstIr- thlt will be addi-ft-ssrd Dvet~clropmtt~ Srir- Morgan. .oqn; . nor i 2. -19 N (LI.. Re%. at 85~9- IIt ioiug II SutaIfr irrstullIoI if N.c TIrevst- prif icsN wil rII li ii1 sr- w((Im 81I1, 863. 81 5. lIrr- ir pd un~IILII lit sI Mr fteS, ploitIIs anrd fail(IIIIities SIn If a1is wa Ikw'AaNSs 7(1. NC.Ci. St~t � .1 1- 2.i0(S fIp 1 9 8fI ) Idr lIi la IIIII ;Iw, nrderIsc 575 -I it1 .fIII, IISioI aI . ITP .IIaia,)4 1 IIh i f dIi gI .SI ii I I I ,oI It of .Sta cx Icl 7iIi I La." 25(I I81 cd iil I I P. Ir-ii big Ir mnrIiir diiIg fIllIg, rtur-III N- tI 2 11.2d 67 1 O 969 i. sir 5thorrcandlBra( It. Vol. Sf1. No. S, .]ulI NA982. ijIIg 01i rIrieIIVIWtwi alYirrItI g I((lat%,;I"VI welatId"' Ml~r NIl adopir'd. II) III-2( a1IenTld. dMOdified cIt r~r-i-fIsn M rI~deh twr(tvat IiiNairlesi 58. ii; fr it-[f II ifisi iissiot iof Glon % Cmty(of Santa Cruz: arid Dirt: sv. I-S. Will; ifir (~Iprr f OWi Maill I- Fi11-isirri- C01111irissiOr;. tking~. 2 Cal. 3dl 2)1. 81 I O.Rpitr. I152, 465" I.2di1# 5(1197(t). Sev shfiore 71. S( hoii-tlramin;, .snpra, notirr 9. SM N..1. -. Hr-s. at 281I. and Bra,- It. Vil -1), No,. 2., Aprt I 1 1181, Ii. 2:). 72. N.C. Girt. Slat;. I 13A-l1ft rt Her. I-cit a L(if; ;uf;d listuissiori oif Ibc; 5)1. S( hlcr{ribaiit;. .;qiP.tin;;- 2. 51 N.( :.I,. Rv-s. at 2(1. esolutvi;; of (AMIA, sv'e I ivail;. .siijra. tiroe 7,5!3 N.C.I.. RIs. 3F . trO. 11. ;II 11. src-al%(o 1 till lo Land;!- Withil tlin Coa~stail Zon(tre.arIPn. Sr- i-dso S( hoenhba;tu. nurra. nort; 9. 5.3 N.( .1.. Rr% - 271:'. 'III;; Not Ii; (C;rtrriolr Coa;stal %laitag;-erne Program;, aft;; nortitng 73.~ SIr) froetit ;ir i L. sur-. ti it, n - 9. 5:) NC. I H;-;. arI 2A1- 28). Iwl-r Irlst I Ir IIIIN i a; ( Icssa r-a i laft Weit; IIL I I; irio;;;La sea shlurts. stat I (S: " ull. NC. G((1-ti. Star.t I I 1 3A -\-llrlleli se. Ii;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a;I- (I;rI;;- ;lrif lir60ni-sti rI;;l Nrl CaoIi os 7-I S(hi fnrcot;;rn. miqra. ru;; 9. 53 N.C:L. HRI-s. a; 285.`286. (l-ootnori ii;; ~vt- 1ir1fblu;f (1w;;;-;LILA ;ii; nor- faxoratfrlc. Stulttr conirtirt;;ieits orntmi;ted.) Stec isu N.C. Cc-;;t Srai. � I IMA-Ifi. I PiA-I VS. has;- fp;r;dr-d loft public accss ho; nia tiaN areas. access. has I 13A-1 IS. [f ate it wsill Iey bo ch; a probtlem i IntIIr- Iii; ore - In rfat;, rhere arei ft-w 689. 249 S.E. 2(1 402 (1978;. Forl div ust i53onsir Ini( i mpleimenrtatin i art-as where access Is denied to thir- Itifi.It is recognized, how.A c f Ilir- a(ct. see Glenn. The Coastal Area Afaitagrytirnt Art in tire ces-r, that increased dev-elopment in and rise of the shoreline mas Courfrs. A P'crrn~jnary Analist.;, 5.3 N(;.L.. Re-s 3(0-I f1971;; causv bc-ad; access to br-come- a problem in the- future." NCC IP. S( lucx-nbatrt &- Rosenbe-rg. Thre Lalrrlrrtat on Coastal sripra, noti;; 1, a; 121. Zone Alanagemi-ni: Thre North Camolna Model. 1976 Dutke I.J.1.I 61. Sr-c -Legal Effect of Physical Chtanges in the Location of the 76. NCCA11I. supira. non- fat 54-58. 165-223. The two-tier appttiac l Sholtel int - - unidt-r- "WDter m inatii otttf Tidal Boundaries." supra - is sri tnnariied at 54-56 as fol lows-s 62. (;'atrthit Bra flei Fiiiu s~;n tire, in;c. v- Town itof (arolina rea ch. "Th- fit st tic it-: on si srs of critical r;sr iii;-ur a; Ftra.. -(Ai i-( :-. in 5ujira .277 N.C.. 297. I177 S.F. 2d1 513; Caputic s. Rolbitms, 273 N.C. w s-ficht risti significanit land and 5-arc; usc- ar regtzl~re r .58 1. 1 60SF.I. 2t 88 1 (1968;. petit;its. 'Flit- seconid nit-i ctutsisr- of INir arc-;. . .ilutsiifr- rlt 63. 2173 N.C. atl 587-588. 16(0 S.E.2d a; 885-886): Bar oot s-. Willis. 178 JAI-Csj . . . N.C. 2001. 10(1S.F. 303 (1919). 6-1. N.C. Gv-r. Statl. � 146-12. The Dr-parrmtri; of Administration. rial l ;s-ijtt-~ r ii6sirtn Fs tir-guilatc-dbh ss-i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~tiii Thei ii;-or ao adirti is-alofrh-tist-g and( ; r onclol a rp.vt-mI ertut- ita; I;rirsf;adntoir i-irgii- AN- xtnirjr tI;;-gran;;- Irti such puitpoisesand upon sitiih corditiotisas it niaN giart; iii A F( % is sliarr-d berwee-r nit- CRC: ad tit( Iraa] go~i i-ninvit-t d tent prpe. uriin i;its 'T-e C.R Cssi I pt-ocess apIpiil atrionns rot rraj or deveilop- 6.5. N.C. Gent Sir;i.� 116-8. Least-sare sultject to- all righis ofnasiga- nti; ~ a-ha~e so oa tcsr;srn iigniir tion anil s iibjrer c r such or her rerm.s anrd cotidit ions as may- lit dvc-s--p 01imt-i app l ica tiont ... imposedtI fi ht- state.' The t ase ae issued a; rh-( etit-qust of thi - Deparrtment of Natitt-al Resources and Com~munitN Desvc-]opment. 1Ilit fth- seetond-; irrarvas.] th;- programt calls fcor a mor;- limitid 66. N.C:. (;en. Suit;. � 11-3-202. The Marine Fisheries Commission is state folc-. The; starr- ssill itistls;d in dt-cisioti-makitng in itor-AL-C resltnnsilifc fo; Such least-s%. art-as onli NA-lt-r- uses arid actisitits whichi has-c a p~otenttial Iot; 67. NC:. Ct-t. Stat. � 146-50. The D~epartmentr of Administration. dirt-Ctlv. antI significaritl-. afft-rting (iastal resoiurces ate livinig wsi ;h rIte( appicisal of tht- gos-irnor antI rite Council of Slawt, is Prorposed. responsible- lot such least-%. JANUARY 1983 23 The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XI: The Washington Approach BY PETER H.F. GRABER Office of the Attorney State of California San Francisco, California ASHINGTON STATE'S coastal zone, encompass- counties' littoral lands,'0 with titles generally stem- ing a 2,337-mile marine shoreline,' consists of ming from federal grants. About 155 miles of the coas- twodistinct types of land formation: glaciated tline belong to the United States, including Olympic regions in the north and gentle coastal plains in the National Park and various wildlife refuge areas." State south. and local governments have title to 107 miles of Puget Sound, dotted with the scenic islands of the shoreline.l2 San Juan Archipelego, and the north shore of the B. Tidelands Olympic Peninsula reflect the sculpturing of glaciers. The Pacific Ocean north of the Quinault River has Upon entering the Union on November I, 1889," rugged headlands (Fig. 1) and narrow rocky beaches. By Washington assumed ownership of all tidelands not contrast, along the south coastal plain extending to the previously disposed of by the predecessor territorial mouth of the Columbia River there are wide sandy government.' Thestate'sConstitutionexpresslyasserts beaches and extensive dunes.2. ownership"s while disclaiming title to lands patented One of those broad beaches was the subject of an epic by the United States.'6 legal battle in the mid-1960s between the State of Under theequal-footingdoctrine,7 Washington has gashington and irs. Stella Hughes, ab n upland owner. the same sovereignty and jurisdiction over tidelands as Washington and Mrs. Stella Hughes, an upland owner. The beach had widened by more than 500 feet since the original states. 1889, when Washington joined the Union, and under To protect the state's harbor areas, the Washington state law the boundary between the state's tidelands and Constitution established a harbor line system.' It was the uplands was permanently fixed as of 1889. provided that Harbor lines be fixed in front of incorpo- But in 1967 the UInited States Supreme Court held rated cities and that the bed of harbor areas be reserved that federal law, which provides that the boundary forever for navigation, commerce and related pur- moves seaward with accretion, controlled over state law poses.'9 and that Mrs. Hughes was entdtled to the accreted land.' Although commercially important areas generally And in 1982 the Supreme Court dashed the state's hopes were reserved for public ownership and control,20 the by refusing to overturn that earlier decision.' state sold approximately 60 percent of its tidelands to Although MClrs. Hughes' beach victory had a signifi- private parties between 1889 and 1971, when such sales cant impact, it was probably the mushrooming devel- were discontinued by law.2s opment of the shoreline of the Puget Sound area and a State-owned tidelands are divided into first-class and court decision about filling along a lakeshore that second-class tidelands. First-class tidelands are those court decision about filling along a lakeshore that prompted the Evergreen State to become a pacesetter in "lying with or in front of the corporate limits of any city, or within one mile thereof upon either side and coastal zone regulation. The Shoreline Management between the line or ordinary high tide and the inner Act of 19715 was ratified by the voters the following harbor line, and within two miles of the corporate year, and in 1976 the Washington State Coastal Zone limits on either side and the line of extreme low tide."22 Management Program was the first such program in Tidelands not within or near cities are second-class the nation to be approved by the Federal Government.6 tidelands.2, TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN C. Submerged Lands THE COASTAL ZONE Washington's coastal zone lies within 15 counties Washington has title to submerged lands within a frontingon the tidal waters of the Pacific Ocean and its 3-geographical-mile belt by virtue of the Submerged bays, Puget Sound, and the Straits of Georgia and Juan Lands Act of 1953.24 de Fuca.7 Lands within the first tier of the zone, which *This the 10oh an4 sries oa jrteetJ prrent"na apsue etren , ,1the r.r.,emplrery law o! the e*r.l far non-attarnee. The -artIIe ,biefyv e-4mmar11us lertafn aIperee a) the extends 200 feet landward of the shorelines may be .rn . lutte, al. . ..u. .i...ieadsIerr.,i,,he SaterefVth ..(dre.rr.rni..n ther,,.tfatt divided into uplands, tidelands, and submerged lands.9 ? ner elh rmph. oe the tlre rules w far tidal bur.nd.rv ....tml,.,sn Spere llmJtatluonJsrerludean In-depth anatvlllo ma ny i thee taoplseorns a nvdlrutluni J]n eated matters. The Itews exprered In thlr a ns the other arte I, n the ,ertes do noit re, errily A. Uplands rel hnie atholhe 0Iee a)irf theAle r reymv (.e. ;nera. State fl Cahltrna. orr anv ,ther rltlenC ao the State ol Call)rne a." 19183 by Peter I F Graber. The aurhoe r alo, asserts , rPvyrsht Private parties own three-quarters of the coastal prortertonlorther Irrtn marlilteIn Ihe rr.s 16 SHORE AND BEACH D) I ~I. I~t II NAJ 11 01' TID)A Ito V DARIF i.-BIIIwI)II0Im'NT)IIIS Ljl Iliil)ti1IiitI' hiI. A mII . liII it i.tlingor, thf' .4ict I i 4( 411ICI~oMIl u 't.4( III II )'\ ~. I II( I,) III S uIs INS IIIe N'ege- II .11 . xxIld h,)IIIIA.jI Ii 4 14114 144Ix i 4xIldi I.1 41 4lS ~ li S 1441 4w 41'tlil. ili!Ij III'.441 t ~ l 4II '.t1 4I4III4I,( Im SI I, )II ii I. 1444l4tx Ii )Iii I '., di.' 1\ SjI I)I il~'ti Ii i'.. ii /t v. 1c lIN-(I w''l11.141 piIlf it 'ip(illid 11.441 441 4114 iI I114. Ili ',I I4 I 11.1 I I . 1)m11wlIIIImiluishi p ( iuiijltuiiulx ,(l w~liht41 hit ilit jilt, Itt 11 led 4414(1d 1i1.5 .11411' It lIt 111 . I i.44,1 III S 1111 444411 4mIiiloil 6)III(1 it)1114 IQI 11)1 )4,'ll, !I I.4411I 1711 1~ii 1 4 Stu)rI I' SIN I if . IX1, t1t ( .4114 Ilt.l' ' .114 ,11 I Il( lt fillt II4111 Ilil'. I4. w 441111 S14441 fil'.(,4 Il) II IS 1 4~114 lI41 ItI 4iltl I'lid( IN(111S !111'If 'l '1 I ( ()I I) if X (.II I II f ) II u 1111 fU 11111 T~k( Appl I Iig I I I I I II I I. I II I I II I I (IS( (.i Sc itII IIIItIIII-I1 (III)IIi 'I lI II IIII\ %; IIISI ___ Iw fI1,IALus I~~~~~~~~~~~- I\IIIIkI IIsiIN-,I-I )I I I I I NII.I f' i IIII; !1,)Il,~~~- Il(I\III-I(M I( um f ix 1 1,1)il il I l W ihlil' F((ig. 01, Poi t"IIIIlg ofl'.l Arche and.11ilii NIhBoWshntn I(ht cuts ofl Wate Resource Cente Archives nivesitylm of ll Cillfna IBerkeley) IIIIIII %II ~~l l it 'liu t t s Iu h(NN.Nn".I ldil)(1 Il III( IlSJ ai APRt(II 198 17lIS13' ow 1- h t a poI 1fl l(" itM p q lI 'Ilfi[hloa federal rather than state law controlled." WASHINGTON'S The U.S. Supreme Court based its decision on the PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE principle that the extent of ownership under a federal 'File Washington Supleme C(out has not had ocLa- grant, including the question of title to accretion, is sion to apply the ipu)lic trust doctrine"s as explicitly governed by federal law.3 And under federal law, the and extensively ais coults in stull h states as Californias' court pointed out, there was a "long and unbroken line and New Je,-ey. 2. of decisions ... that the grantee of land bounded by a However, early W\asilnligton cases re(ognizte the body of navigable water acquires a right to any natural public's right of nlavig;tioll in tidelaltls. Andi in a and gradulal accretion formed along the shore."39 1969 decision involving a lake rather than tidal waters,4 In its Hughes opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court the state's high court acte(l to )protect tile naigational injected another rationale for following federal rather right although not exl)ressly teferring 1o the pu)llic than state law in cases of shoreline changes along the trust doctrine. open ocean coast when the source of title is a federal As a result of these anld other cases, two legal writers patent: have asserted that the ''"doctrine clearly sentms to exist in Washington.' 55 "The rule [concerning the extent of a federal grant] deals wi th waters that lap both the lands of the State and PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS the boundaries of the international sea. This relation- ship, at this particular point of the marginal sea, is too In 1901 the Washington Legislature de-lared that the c lose to the vital interest of the Nation in its own boun- state's Pacific Ocean shore and beaches shall be a "pub- darics to al;low it to he governed by any law but the lic highway forever,"'i thus encouraging public use of supreme Lasw of the Land."'40 and access to the ocean beaches. A 1963 law reserved a portion of the Pacific coast ;is a "public recreation When the upland owners who had been denied title area.' 'lany of these beaches are nou within the Sea- to the accreted lands in the earlier state trial court law- shore Conservation Area, which includes a number of suits learned of Mrs. Hughes' good fortune, they tried to access points for the l)adlic.5 The State Park an get the judgments in those cases changed so they, too, Recreation Commission adilisters this area would benefit from the accretion. But in 1978 the laster programs dSevelopel by local govern1ments Washington Supreme Court turned down their re- under the state's Shoreline Ianagelelt \ct of 19719 q estsS.4 are required to include a "public access elelrrent making Meanwhile. the state had been given some hope that provision for public access to publicly owned area;ls.''" the U.S. Supreme Court might retreat from its 1967 Permits issued utinder this actor under local govern imenlt Hughes decision. In a 1977 case involving an Oregon lard-use authorities may require the provision of pub- river the court appeared to cast doubt on Hughes. lic access as a condition for approval.f' although declining to reconsider that decision.42 As yet, the customary rights doctrine of Oregon62 a.nd Then. in June 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court breathed the imnplicd dedication theory of California,63 both of new life into its Hughes decision in California ex rel. which have been used to encourage public access, have State Lan!ds Conm tn v . Unitead States.43 The court reaf- not been applied bv Washington's appellate courts. It firmed uttghe5 and flatly held "that a dispute over appears, however, that those (ourts (ould he called accretions to oce.anfront land where title rests with or uOp in the futire to teide beach access qiestion was derived from the Federal Government is to be arising from the judicially declared princil)le that lIri- determined by federal law.''44 vate upland owncrs whose source of title was the I T'nited 'With lthis latest Snplreme Court decision, it seems that States are entitled to accreted lands.64 the long uncertainty over ownership of accreted lands along most of Washington's coastline has been resolved. PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS In general, it appears that the uplandtideland boun- When tile State of Washington was selling tidelands lary is analambulatory line instead ofa line permanently into private ownership. the owners of the abutting fixed as of 18t89.'1 However, there remains a checker- uplands had a preferenltial right of purchase.6i Except board patterni of differ(nt legal boundaries, even in the for that right, however, the owners' littoral rights are saeil loc(ales. Ielatiase of the pre-Hughes state court more limited than those of their counterp)arts in other juidgmIeIts: soil'me i ivate lands continue to be bounded coastal statesl.6 by the 1889) j Jil '" iile othilers extend to the present I ine. Plresutmabl y, the rcen t 1 'S. S prenme Court (htci si,)ns O()wnerstlip )of the accreted lands apparently is now on tile owtnership ()f ac(retcd lanids6 will a;lti-c most tinallly clstclecdl, I)ut thlre is the potential for future private upland owners who do not also owi thetljoilln- hlga[l po)iltltis ove\ Itpublic access to an use of these ing t idelalds(of accSs to ti(l waters. Previosl, tlnder ;a'eas .' the state rule. that access (coul I)he (tit off bllc'atis, tlhe \'lhile ;tc(-relioll has been the focus of the courts' state Ias enltitledl to he accreted lanlds. attertion ill Mrs. I luglies' case and other lawsuits. the \Wkashimisgtoil State Coastal Zone Management Pro- LEASE AND REGULATION granl's 1'979 ;\nlendllnelts address the problem of ero- OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS Sion n (conMid(tral)hle dealal."' The program designated as a-reas of )artlicullar concern two sites that have been A. Leasing suibject to severe etosiorl, 'roke Point in Willapa Bay The state is enlllowctredl to lease nitIt lh of its tide atd anid Edit I look oi the Str;lit of San Juan de Fuca.9 sumiberged laands "for the puposeur of p(rope(tilig for, 18 SHORE AND BEACH deVVlo;citI~g anti producing oil, gas or other hydrocar- 8781 119I9 i. it cast- involvinig Lakec Chelan. hon suitstantces.''11 Leases for this purpose arc not pci- 6.Frai edseisotofi'pogaee'LastgadRua 11011 of Coastal Zonet Lands an(d W'att'ts," in tea. mitred alontg pailt of the Pacific Ocean shore- and beach 7. 1,S'7fj uranw at 5. that has he'eti legi slii vely dleclared a ''public- high- S . alt'rnrter arc ret-irired lor dev'elopment in ithe first tier under the wN"'A inutmbci' of stat ute's govern leases for other Warslcintgot State Coastill Zonv Managemrent Program, thelheart putt i.poses1)' of whi h iuis iii cShorel ne MIanagemntn Ar t. For a hri i di scussiori Of Il ice aI. sicv ''Lasing and Rcguialtitir of Cc;gstei Zone Lands antd Water-s.'' mina. -1 he rest of the( I5 counttties comprise the BI. Regulatory Functions Sv~iditt ti(.i of til( (oasti~il zotit.. 9. This (Iassificat ion is tist'd for (eiivenhi'tte and( ( Onsistenc% With oivtii arti(cls in this series. lit ithe se'rie's, tidelands have been] Comlpre'he'nsiver regu Ia ion of W~ashington's coastal geni'ra~ll) defitied ais lands INing bewtwciri thev tinces of meattt high zone' wats initiatd withl tie Shoreline Manage'ment Act atid rilegal) low waterl, bill U Iett Washitgiut law, tideclands arte of 1 971 (SM A) ," tatiified by tire volters the fo~llowinrgsiitiint' de-fine ile tit rm its of itt itt net ha rht lint- or til lint' of Veal ) The Legisla in ', in eacting SNMA, declared: exic)ttitir ltiw tide. Sit note, 21, infra, aiid at companinitg text. gi -entire-, ~~ ~~~~~~~~I t. Abtttt 2,075 mniles of dtic Slawes sihoitlire wnc lin ptrivar'owtre't- 'tis tilt poeli( oif tIie staic( to pt'iolid fot the' man- si stil7t 5SZ1.spa tt ,a 0 agf'rne'ci of thec shore'line's of the'- State liv platitting lo] II . Ibid. Fudetalle owirtil anil maria gir lands at t ext Iuded f ront and foster ing ialltaoaiaidpptpat uses. Till asttii'soeas l titr. Id. at 121-122. petlif N is dv'sigtied to itnsutlr thte devse'lopnment of these 12. Ibid. shorelines aeitt rntamnrlt xs'hich, wshile' allowing for 1 3. Poll of Seattle v. Oregon & 11'. B. R., 2~5. U.S. 56, 63 0 920): Pres. limitied reVductiotI Of rightS Of the puLbliC if) the naviga- Piot. No. 8, 26 Stat. 1.552; 25 Stat. 676. bf aes il l prnta d e he ,'the pult 14. lIn 1853 the( Territory of Washington wsas established, succeeding interest . sl ptmor ari enac'tepbi heO"7tTrioya1t hae ihnwati o tt'o Underthis d, eah cit and ountywithi the oas-Washington. Territorial laws had granted Some' tidelands into Under his at, eah cit and ounte w i t h n thecoas-private ownership. I R. Powell, The Lau, of Real Property, � 88, tal zone has developed a maste'r program covering the 1t. 333 (R(-v. ed. 1981). conduct of shoreline uses and activities. After state 15. Wash. Const. art. XVII, � I, provides in part: "Tile' state of alppeoval. the' local programs became part of the State Washington asserts its ows'tership eto the beds and shores of all MasterProgim.71 Te proramswhich apply t onavigable waters in the state up to and including the line of Master Program24 The programs, to ~~ordinary high tide, in waters where the tide ebbs and flows, water-covered areas and uplands within 200 feet of the 16. Id. art. XVII. � 2. ordinar-, high-water mark, are implemented through a 17. For a brief discussion of the equal-footing doctine, see the first permit system.75 article in this series, Shor-e and Beach, V'ol. 48. No. 4. Octobet The ShorelineManagement Ac is the cornestone of 18.1980. pp.15- 16. The Shoreline Managemen~~~~~~~~~~ t Acis ti onrton f1.Ws . Consi. art. XA'. the W~ashington State Coastal Zone Management Pro- 19. Ibid. For a discussion of the harbor lint' System, see Johnson gram,26 w.hich wvas approved by the Federal Govern- Coonev, Harbor Lines and the Pu bitc Trust Doctrine in W'ash- ment in 1976. The state's Department of Ecology has ington Nav'igable WIaters, 54 Wash. L. Rev. 275 (1979). the primary responsibility' for administering this pro- 20. Id. at 288-289. bul may othe agenies hae resonsibiities 21. WSGZMP, supra, note 1, at 72-73, Wash. Rev. Code � 79.01.470, gramn,''btmn te gnie aersosblte The wav in which such tidelands were described saried from time for various aspects of it.". to time. "Ai first, tidelands were' sold by metes and bounds fixed by surveys. ...- However, in 1895 a law was passed defining the seaward boundary of tidelands as 'the line of mean low tide-' of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 'the inner harbor line' where one had been establishe-d .... The definition was amended 16 y'ears later by extending the boundary of tidelands out to 'extremne low ride" or 'the inner harbor line'.". The authoi is grateful to Robert C. Hargreaves. Johnson &- Cooney. supra, note' 19. 54 Wash. L. Res. at 289 n. 64. assistant attorney general, Office of the Attorney Gen- (Emphasis added.) era], and Don M. Peterson, section head, Shorelands 22. Wash. Rev. Code � 79.01.020. Division Departmnt of Eclogy, Stte of Wahington, 23. Id. � 79.01.024. Division Departmnt of Eclogy, Stte of WahingtOD, 24. 67 Stai. 29; codified at 43 U.S.C. � 1301 et. seq. for providing some of the information and source mate'- 2.5. Wash. Const. art. XVII, � 1. rial cited in this article. 26. 67 W~ash. 2d 799, 4 10 P.2d 20 (1966). G~enerally. a state's highest courts's interpertarion of a state constitutional provtston is con- trolling, but this decision wsas subse'qtenilv. reverse'd by the U.S. REFERENCES Supremei court in Hughes v. Washington, 389 I .S. 290, on the accretion issue. 27 .67 Wash. 2d at 81 1, 410 P.2d at 27. quoting from Hark ins v. Del I. Mositcit the shoctrlinc-l,784 mile's-borders or) Pudget Sound Pozz2, 50 Wash. 2d 237, 240, 310 P.2d 532, 5314 (1957). aneitiheSirait of(;<orgiat(inicitdingtheshorelinesof 172signigi- 28. Borax, Ltd. v.G ity of Los .ngelert, 29611.I.. 10(1935). SeeShore cart islandsotf tite San Juart Archiipelego)). The balance includes and Beach, Vol. 48, No. -1, October 1980, pi). 17-18, and vol. 49, 157 miles alonre the Pacific: Ocean. 144 miles along the Strait of No. 2. April 1981, p.21. Juan deFuca. ]29mtilesin Willapa Bay, 89rniles in Grays Harbor 29. For a detailed analysis of the starte courts's Hughtes opinioti and attd 34 mtiles on the Columbia River. l4a~shington State Coastal the Borax "mean high tide'' rule, see Corker, Where Doese the Zone Alanagineneutrt Program 5 (1976) [here-itaf ter referred to as Beach Begin, and to Whatr Extent I.s Thist a Federal Question .42 WSCZMI']. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Wash. L. Re". 33, 43-46 (1966). 2. Id. at 57.7 9. 30. Hughtes v. Washington. supra, 389 U.S. 290. 3. ltetlhes %-. ll'asehirtglon,."9 UTS. 290 (97.For a discussion of 31. it (could be argued that the vegetatiorl line cotnce'p, which was thisdeecisiori. see "Legal Efclter of Physical Changes in the Short' adopted by the Washingoin Supreme' court in a portion of its li"ute'dtitee 'Dutermination oft Tidlal Bouindaries.'' mica. Hughes decision that wasnot expressly overreiled. re'mainsas that 4. (Californiia ex eel. Stair Landi.% Comni 'n %.United States. 102 S.Cr. coutrts's interpretation of tiremeaning of tite'siatc'sconsriitutional 2432 jutrt 18. 1982). Provision. 5. iasit. Res. Seat. � 90.58.0101 et seq. A primary impetuts to the 32. Itt Wilson v. Howard, 5 Washr.App. 169!, 180, 486 P.2e1 1172, 1178 e'nadcmueri of tI iis Ia w, ws'icihi ap plic's tee lake's its, well as tille'coa sr, (1 971), thie state's Court of Appeals fiteld rthat tire' Iteti tary is ''tire wits tht Washinirg tont Stilire n Cetrtir'.s dceti 5ien in Wirlbeour v'. l inte' of oirdinary high watermark,'' wh ie i the cotrrt eqae arid witrh (iallajehrr, 77 Wash .2ei M6., 462 P.2d 232, rert. denied, 400h U.S. ''tire line of mean high tide deter-mined as nearly as possible by APRIL 1983 19 IIiiiiti rig I I le Jat age height of allI high tides ..over 'he I 18.. mento 5387ii. 99 31 li`i Shfirt-ill"r M'ilIiagirnernr A-ct of 1971 defines ''ordinarvr high- i. hjis dlrr( tille. I'll,i IF oiriil.9iliiid .41 (lllnoll ll aw., issilils Iho' w~iter Ilnark' In Itrins of vegetation, although adding 'hai 'Iu I sii' uldii s right of llaisigatiiii if) fidhal kwaiitsislieihri'r tire kroidri'-IN 0.1ina ika i rifleoittif mneanhJigherhigh tidet. Wash, Rev. CrrdIV� ing linrds in'- in piilil ii Inat i5.,%ii' s hii p. Flit i brief diS( us- Il/.-8.1W32){h): svealso the~adminfistrative rule set forth it ' ash.1 ion Iiflir'oliginl aid ilr-vloplucisrri dw lIi ou( rplst..' h/or'raind AdIIIr.Codlt. 13I -31)i Beat iI. Vol 18, No. 1. OIi tibvr l�I8t ppt. 18-1i. 31. lliisi' lases weebrought bN the private propert (wise'rs.Sr - S I.VVralrifiiIiso ii(rioiiiiie.rohdn ./rr ~~~~~~01-ilsiisii t ,iiira Rentals. Inc. v. State, 89 Washr.2d 819. It'/eitne'y, ii -II. :ill 25!.11 ii. Rpirr. 790. 4191 P.2d 37 109)71 . 544 820. 576 l'.2id i2, i3 (1978); Hug~hes v. State, supr-a. 67 Wash.2r1 Shore rind Be'a t. ih. % t. 11,Ni. 2. Apt i 1981. pip. 22-23. 799. 8 11-8 I I 110 P2d 20, 26-27, rev''d sub n om. Hurghies v. 52. Fi ra. hrric~is filiisi iiSi4 t f Ncss J4v 4%t' I awsi. tii 4i i ic~ni ~ of -l~/rgon.rPra, 389 U.s. 290. Neptrune Citv ~. i/rorg/it Aofj l~ivr-/iVte-Srea. fil N.J 291). 2911 35. As file state( (flrt said in Huighes, supra. 67 Wash.2datl 81, -I10 A.2i1-17) I972, set- Shote'and Bear Ii. Voil._ii), Ni. 2. April 19822.1). P.2d atl 27: 'Ili practically all of the judgments the 1889 line ats I 1. srirvesei arid tit-scrihed therein is j udicialI% determined to he [Ile .5. 3it. S e' .g. ;Ii 'tae S I s i i r re 'a i it. 71)i ; SV Is. 15 8, 1 3 P. 11 - 05 ( 1) I 3): Ir/I II line(if'ifd inry ightidrwhrer t eihigh n teiIdehdwhofre N 7t eexisteId W SoIn -2h27.1 3 h Iay 1.of7)v. 97r\'( 9s 5e// 1)1)i oWish I ' I Notvin-nicu, 1,889, es tab! ished by the commissioner Of Pubic w -~in imi ig if thle l~itziidnriak Ct di fri rnia. P 441)1 i rus i dvii siioiti I'vo-i lands.' Norne of the trial court judgments in the-se cases was pi' N. ("a/1ifornia Fit/i Co_~. i6 li) a. 576. Hs3 P. 791) (hI ). appetaledt. 54. Wilb/isiir S . Gall Iag/her, ulp ra 77 Wasih 2id 3116. 16l2 P. 2d 2:12, ( ert - :16. 67 Wash.2df at 814. 4 10 P.2d at 28. The court also relied oin Art. di'ured. 1110 U.S. 878. XVII. � I orf tIIIe state's (constitution. quoted in note 15. supra., 551. Johnisotn k- C(:ri'.s supra, mile 19. -A Waish..1.. es. ait 287. 11 is sa t I fig: ..Tirc siate's constitutional assertion of ownership il l ounkttiwt wihs I ilt Wasis go pcli u sls 1 889 irterminatared an% rights the upland owner mnav have had to itlIs ri-ferrid to oiire lic-ripiii si rlit' lublt i i4ru ni o r ti irr i. Ptr- l hi-rsaP it future actrr'riors.' 67 Wanh.2d at 814, -110 P.2d at 29. is breiaost' titi publisi'N I ighi toi IIs- ii stints harb or Warias %%I,, In i 1961 thle N inthi Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the ieI) T-Wrid by it . theSI' ii iris ltii i ri ral II sri iof .iisiriiabli h i ng .r hetirs oia Quuiitsaruiltisdian totNwhom the Lnited States had issued habriiessin fri oiirt eti rrrst~is i is18 aI trust Isatrit- after statehood were entitled to accreted latids. arst i9, slirpro. Unrited Stiite5s v. 11'eishrn~ton, 294 F.2d 830 /9th cir. 1961/. cert. .56. 190f Was. aws u ,ii. 1111. Ils'leglvai seItr~ii t rdr denied. :169 U.S. 817 ( 962). This federal court decision was itig Irhetidtilatits to ise a1 'iiuIiiit hrighiway" waSs. tnot So1 uIII IF( II cuntrarvr iti the state court decisions relied upon by the Washing- establishit aThorouitghsfare. is it was to ;I re'st-r.t' ldt bt'aiis .us a [oi isu'tsprt-tn C outir in its H-u ghes opinion because it applied rel.rratiii alI ruou izirr fils ire iist of ru'lit i public . - - ii rta i Fhish ru federal law to detertnine the boundary. Co. . .Sat'idge. 152 Wash. 165, IXI. 277 P. 159. 161 (19�291. Sit' :17. :18) U'S. ar 291 Wash. Re%. 0)(Irii 79.1 Ii. 130) 79.1 Ili. I 6ii fsr dtEc laira ti n; a~ spub- :18. :189 U'S. at 2)12 lii hiighw a sa. 39. :18 U.S. .ir 2)13 57. TFue Legislature detclared rirar thaIl pirtiitin rif lIre 'publiris higit. I 1l. Ibid. waN- esraislisht-d bv iut- 19111 laws 'l1 ing bsew-ets thut litre of -Il . Coh/ im bra leer al/s, Irc N. State, siupro. 89 WSash .2d 819. 576 P.2d vegerat oi i u ut hi' I tilt- I nof I5: lcti IIr ighi rtidt-as n( lIIIi Tt'rs II iswa I ti-i r 62 tulav lrt'ttaittr be. is . . . lit ulaTVc triniatni art i .itt'a.ii is .Set 12. Oregon ex re/.State lca oe Board v. Cort'a//is Sand - Gravrel Co., asidg anti reserseti for iii risi-orf ru'lrllt -196: Waish. I aiws,: hi. 129 U.S. 3163:11977). Its that case the court held that state law rather 212. Ste Wash. Rev. Coifrti' 79~1. iA72trSup~p. 1)1821 fordlri lWi t iri risar federal lwgieistelalfecofphysical changes in the as a ''putblic reirt-eatio n aria." waierwartl bisutitarv of I., tds conveyed under a federali patent antd 58. " The t r'an (ointisrs i of fi ii laintis whsii i fall gcntr'ra llt bixirtii-'i ad jiiign i tiga ntti/al /siti' tch of a navigable river. In the view of tihe ixi rt'mc low h d iirir ar sighli v id Pr ribi( ii( arnsspoilsiirt dissnth Iir Conr'aI/i~s. rlife 'hold ing also overrur es Hughues v. have hseets pro rrisila-i ;ttittii-rvals nor-lbl tsr l't s ri-pr ulit rtor r.i-a( 11ih' ll'~r/ingon -.alririiugh rise rsrajoritv did not so rule. 429 U'S. at beach."- WS(YMP. ru pra, torte I at .9�5-96. lFht 'it'.shi ie(: isr :1h3IMashal. J., tissitruitsg). See the brief discussion of Corvallis vttnAt A~i.Rv ~'~115 6( tsq.wsjast n titi Shrore asrd Ber/it. V~il. 50, No. 3. July 1982. p. 22 n. 31. 1967 and limtsjedi nsrrn'rei: nriirtrl risc if tin'- ~iflit( Il ir-:ti rm r ust. 43. 102 S. (:t. 2 1:2 (.otne 18. 1982). This cas e involved title to accre- 59. Id. � 90.58.0 1ifI et .seq. tiritis adjriiting a U'S. (:oasr Guard facility on the open ocean til. Wash. Rev. 0xitit 9 �11.8.1i(Il (2) ii). isast iii Califorinia: rlie rase thistisiffered from Hughes, in which 61. NCSZIMP. .Stipri. roin' I, ar il/i-I (I. the ['Haitit Stait's hail parented the uplands into private owner- 62. For a brief dhiscuissiot rif .State ex. rel. Thornto)n %. Ilay. 25-1 ( )r. shtip 'lire State r f Washi ngttin filed an om icus curiatw /(friend of 58-I, 162 P. 2d 1171 1 �169i. sir.Shorean rd Bear rh - Viii. 50, Ni,. :1, . the cisrt)r brief siippisrtn~g California in this matter in tlse 1982. lpp. i -20. aintetnpito in ae [Ile U.S. Supreme Court expressly overrule its 63. For it brief discrrssiiir oif 6roci v. (:ait' of Santa Cm - a:rd :iniirl:t: Hughes dectisiont. King. 2 Cal.3d 29. 841 CaI.Rpir. 152. -165 P.2d 501I19711). st-c.'Shire II1. 10/2 S.(:. at 2,1:18. liii , urin thus lumped together uplands still and Beach. Vorl. 19. Nio. 2. April 19181. p. 23. tennaiti Ii' flie- F-ederal (;rtvrntrnenm atid uplands that had beets 64. See note -17. sirpra. cin~rnctriig settlements of bourndlary dlisputies partr-mit- ei livilie 1ni iti-ti Stai Its into t private ownership. a long tr le ioas fia 4 w hi ili liii' state tints iiiti wsaiv v a itus ti Iallie 15. 'Ilbis ci itirli sirats is Isaseti itt tlse fair that the Federal Government that the publ ic iray Ira e. At si line futitiri tii ie. whlen hi' purb lic is tiile s(Ilrci' of i irli' ofi trist osf the privately owned littorai lands exercises a clainutt right isi aciess across aci-reted l]itati. it seemns aIrling the Washinigtonr Toatst. 'Ilse seansard bonindaries of the that iiriganion cistltd arise irs Ti'st tire ',alidiii of that claimt. tsajeiritv rif thtesi' sari-VIs runliki- Mrs. 1Itgises' property, have isot 65. This right irrigitmamid iii I 8r11; furthrer sales rif si~te-iiwredl Title- in-eIn un't stubjv'i I f liiti'.1iiitr. A\ssumitnig there is iitigatiots ovir lantis were lirodibillinid Is- siliiti'e Ii H)71. NS(:ZNP. sirpril. rirti' dii hiiunsdal iis rif frd-tai'ri v paicirt-itd nipleazts. it appears that tile 1. at 72-73. Srei alsoi (OItirtaurr, Wleiter'Riinidayievi. Tridea uNtlm'hoe 1U.S. .Sulltiit'11 Ciii tI'S I li7 I flgt s g/e'rli ldinig antd its 19821 Ca lifosr- L a eind Rig hts. 23 Wa shs LI. Re-v. 235. 2-11 (I10-8). nraiti sir Siii,. r nris iitmgitl Ii'. a l~itt' de( isiotn. WriUld retliire 66. sixtv Nr.iars ago, lthe U.S. 'Quaifieriii C(:5Th-. iiistikissintg Wamshisngton apliliiatiiii rlf Ilii fi-lai-al irii fathser risan the stale rule. Luw., said its .iparr: '''tUedr ihi' 1.i of Washiisgtor I wh Iirls difi-ifis 16. As (if this writtirg rut-r' is tnt iraiiiiaron that thre pre'Hrughesu itt this ni-spect frorti flit' law ge'neraliv lIiis i lung i'lsilt'r- i a Ititgosemits is ill he ' hi.ngc't. St-'irie -owIi. .srPra . atud accotrrnpanty. tisnycvatic by rth' Stare of tuplandls aibtutini, ripsn at affiri ate a its g i exlt a hilnt t be% W sit izngrirrtii rinrie Cr turt 's 1978 decision on navigable waterwayNs granI ii fi ight iii anvi k inid . .. Iit Litd IIriOsV j tg~rlrerii S. below highwamt'r ina:rk ., ..' Perrif .'Seentt/e s . Ore'gesn IV. W. R. .. -17. in settlemetrs'ss iif huidittiarv riispuziie airitg the coast, tire state sispra. 255 U .S. 56. 6 I. In lrweuOne Itit'lgal wrirt'r poliiti'il our i fiat rinuelitrs proivisiotns thatl It is otri wav~inlg airy elaties that the statitelunis tif this Ilaitirm'. ;it' trie swr'r'Jpig .itstl i riiail: tilvall public rtiav iy e rl under sit if is lgal ili~ici tris asCutstomi. T'ili'phirsme ' t inne t hire are til riptart mi rigist s as a geriii t ie .slarte i r prrmnor run'. ersaiicil Oii o an J.t. 6. �183, %it-ii Robi iir C. IIa rgraca is, assistant etlairnginq rtaider it.'' Jr rhit s n. Riperrier Fii e l Pu blic Rifil r/ .lii at tirrity get tr'ral. Sn;,te oif Wash ingtoun . See atlso i 'Puillic Act ess La ke~s andi St rearms. 35 Wish. L. Rev. 581,61.h ( 1961)1. Rights.'' rnfra. 67. For disc us son i f hi'se dis isionis. sete 'ILt-ga I Elfft' o f P' bysit aI IX. Wut/infngton State coaiscal / irsne Man a gemencit Pro gram AnmInend- Change's itt tlre Liii aiiitsiiio rlt' Shrrrel incv - iiritr' "D'reteiriiinat ii n 20 SHORE AND BEACH (, - Id'da Bt titidait s. tpt SNIA. st-i ( .1ok, The/i 11 a.4itttt nglonh(l / 4 12Pt( 'Tt~t t, 68~ Wash. Re-%. (Atfu -� 79A.04(2(tel .eq. Howevc?. Sutlfact-difiling flot] 411 Mash. I.. Re%. 423 ( 97-1) (ainidgud and ivpitinied at 54 oil oft gas ix piobibitted ini-i flgnmaed arvaso(f Puget Soond and the Ot.1..Ru% . 35 (1975)), Stt~il (if jiiatr du Juta. Id. � W058.1160. 73. Wash. Rnt. odit � 90.58.020.Th prgaimx coIiI- ti9. hI k 79. 1 .1I0,1. 74. Wash. Ad in. 0(h dt 17.3-19 Th rg at t st he e~ifs 70. Svt e,.L:. Id �� 791.01 .5(11. 79(011.536. 79.01 .5401. 79.0] .568. wid] gtii (fll ts eert e Itt filte-t1 dtpt & IN mentl of E olop. 72. SN I AX %,;I, II )b fil A oi It ~ tftlt t it 11)(.[1 int (If alItetIna iivt shorelint. 76. WSGZN]I', .sipya. non I. at 25, 29-413 ttjila(1ttI ti liva tt t.ttt thtat would~i 14(454 requttlutd a widvj strip of 77. Id. a1.(1 hiltt ataldI ettttaiild Icp'IIitbtits lt if) tht, Slaws Ih-palrtrettt of 78. Id. at 70-105 1- ol"Lt~s. 1.. (4 fivt tissi~iol of41 tI Iiistttt ald it-gilatorN .design oIf HENRY F. MORRIS PRES, CE NT Andrew Cashen COASTAL EROSION(~ CONTROL Erosion Consultant 1225 Dock Road, No. Madison, Ohio 44057 olsen associates, inc. coastal engineering Home of Cashen Cone & Wedge erik j. Olsen, p~e. Qurte century dedicated to bithviqg skor. min 1045 riverside avenue suite 265 telephone. Jacksonville. florida 32204 (904) 353-6093 APRIL 1983 21 The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XII: The New York Approach BY PETER H.F. GRABER Office of the Attorney General, State of California San Francisco, California EW YORK CITY, which expanded from a small Ocean, Long Island Sound and the East River.' Extend- Dutch trading settlement into America's biggest ing 150 miles inland, the Hudson River estuary is a city, literally grew up by the water. Its 548-mile long arm of the sea. The limit of saltwater intrusion, shoreline far exceeds that of any other city in the which fluctuates with the seasons, can extend in the nation.' winter nearly to Poughkeepsie, a distance of 70 miles.9 The tidelands encircling Manhattan Island became New York's coastal zone extends to the limit of the municipal property under a 1686 charter issued by an state's territorial jurisdiction in the Atlantic and to its English colonial governor.2 It was on these lands and water boundaries with Rhode Island, Connecticut and on the shorelands of the other boroughs that were New Jersey.)0 erected the docks, piers, and wharves that helped make The zone's landward boundaries vary. In the Long New York City one of the world's greatest harbors. But Island region, the zone embraces all barrier and other the heyday of the port has passed, leaving many decay- islands in coastal waters, and it generally extends 1,000 ing and underutilized facilities. feet inland from the shoreline. Along the Long Island Revitalization of New York City's deteriorating Sound coast of Westchester County, the boundary is waterfront - and other urban shores in the Empire from 1,000 to 8,000 feet inland. In New York City, it is State - is just one of the many ambitious goals of the generally from 500 to 1,000 feet inland at most loca- New York Coastal Management Program4 approved by tions. Along the Hudson River Valley, the boundary, the Federal Government in 1982. in general, is 1,000 feet from the river's shoreline, but it Although the program has various economic objec- extends 10,000 feet in some scenic and recreational tives,5 it also recognizes that seashore recreation is a areas." valuable escape valve for the residents of New York City Lands within the coastal zone may be classified as and its suburbs who flock to Jones Beach State Park uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.'2 (Fig. I1) and other Long Island beaches. Consequently, the program encourages public beach access and water- A. Uplands related recreation.' Most uplands adjoining New York's coastal waters are, of course, privately owned. However, tidal wetlands such as marshes and meadows are subject to considera- TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN THE ble regulation.3 COASTAL ZONE B. Tidelands Under the New York Coastal Management Program, B. T idelands l . . . ' Before the American Revolution, Dutch and English the state's coastal zone comprises three distinct regions: eor te meo e ors tcand the marine coast of Long Island and New York City, royal gov ernor s granted some f New York' s tidelands the tidal estuary of the Hudson River and the fresh- to local municipalities. New York City and towns water Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River area.7 along Long Island's north shore received colonial char- water Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River area.7 ters and patents covering the foreshore and, in some The shoreline of Long Island and its barrier islands ters and patents covering the foreshore and, in some st4Atlantic instances, lands waterward of the low-tide line." stretches approximately 1,475 miles along the Colonial legislatures and the State of New York's 1777 Constitution ratified these grants, and they have been �h the t th ,. a ,er,., ,, art, tet pe.t",ra e, 'apwl",,. ,, thent1,.,.PoraV law considered irrevocable. s 'l the, ta�t Sorrton -atur,,e�s. [he arth If briefly , itartlarlzact .ertala, aspecl~tls the Mtathtory ....~ ....I ...~a. t ....~ve, v,,~.........~ t .......t............,h ......h Itd .-Ie tawit oheSwtate,,N V-o , e.e.... -phcrssMt she I / msl Unlike M1assachusetts, where under a colonial ordi- ,tate'rts�,tawotdalbct...aryv ,let.at ..ipasehr,tat ,...pretuds ...-depth nance there had been a blanket grant of tide-flowed ,snat� as:4ol marayss thesetopics orallydtss uttost related matter. rhe ,ewse pre ssedtnpIeI** h and theot her a....c ....n the se...e. ... .t.t ....es..a reteftcth ..... fthe .l... of t the l ands to the private owners of the adjoining uplands, It .Atto.rney.tienratl,.tate,,t.'ahlornta sranyothergen"colthe/state'f Cahforn'a.'t98bVy the pre-Revolution authorities had not generally pat- PeterAtl h.crabey I'hea ..horat .......ts Xopyr~ghlt prote, t,,n[�r thearst l l art'l ....anthe /ectt' . ta t t r tif aented New York's tidelands into private ownership. 10 SHORE AND BEACH ,,,.. .. . , Fig. 1 Aerial view of Jones Beach State Park, Long Island, New York (Courtesy of the Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission). The couiis have held that colonial grants in New York courts generally have defined the line by reference to designating the Atlantic Ocean or Long Island Sound the tides.24 "Although in most New York decisions the as a boundary extended only to the high-water mark; courts have seemed content to refer simply to the 'high descriptions expressly calling to the low-watcr mark or water line' as the determinant without further specifi- othcerwisc including the beach were reqcuired for the cation .... the standard appeared to be the 'mean' or tidelands to be conveyed.'7 'ordinary' high water line .... "25 Ex(cpt foi those lands previously granted by the However, in the 1975 Dolphin Lane decision,26 the colonial governorsand legislatures, thet stale on July 4, Court of Appeals - the state's highest tribunal - held 1776, acquired title, in trust, to tidelands within its that the "line of vegetation" should be used to deter- bodclers."' The state has conveyed some of thesc tide- mine the high-water mark. The court said that it was lands to private parties,'9 and the courts haxve upheld the "long-standing practice of surveyors in the Town such grants of limited areas.20 of Southampton to locate shore-line boundaries by ref- erence to the line of vegetation."'2 C. Submerged Lands The issue in Dolphin Lane was the location of the New Yolk's title to submerged lands seaward to 3 boundary between private uplands and lands beneath geograplhi(al miles from itsAtlanticshorelinew as con- Shinnecock Bay, a tidal body of water, held for the firmed by the Submerged Lands Act of 1953.7 The Town of Southampton on the south shore of Long United States Supreme Court in 1975 denied the claim Island." At the trial, the court ruled that the original of New York and other East Coast states to the area governmental conveyances under which the upland beyond the 3-mile belt.22 owner claimed extended only to the high-water line.29 To locate that line, the trial court accepted as evidence the natural growth of two types of marsh grasses.30 DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES On appeal, the trial court's so-called "type-of-vegeta- tion test" was termed "an entirely new technique" and A. UI!pland/Tideland Boundary "intellectually fascinating." But in rejecting that New York, like most coastalstates,re(ogiii(s a high- nmthod of determining the boundary, the Court of water l egal boundary between privately ownud littoral Appeals said its use would change the location of the lands and public tidelands.2- Untill tuently, the stat's line and "would do violence to the expectations of the JULY 1983 11 parties and introduces factors never within their '"1977 estimates si.,wed that osr $750 (rillion in darn- contemplation.'" 3ages could be inllitted on tihe south slhore of l.ong New York's highest court also specifically rejected Island between Fire Islandl Inlet and %lonnauk ljoirrt if tidal data as evidence of the location of the high-water the roast were hassaild aty tht rinost srevere hlrricanll mark.32 This view is inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme likely t loa e hi ide ( d Court's landmark 1935 Borax decision33 holding that proj hu rkaLe). the location of the common-law upland/tideland The New York Legislature in 1981 passed the Coas- boundary is ascertained by the intersection of the tidal tal Erosion Hazard Areas Act" addressing the "areas of datum of mean high water with the lands. The state the state's coastline iost prone to roion hazards." ~~~~~justices wrote: ~This law provides for the idenltification of such areas justices wrote: "... In our perception and analysis of the problem it is and the adoption of rules ad regulations intended to misleadingly simplistic to conclude that resolution of reduce erosion hazards. this issue [the method by which the high-water mark In addition, the New York Coastal Management shall be precisely located on the land] turns on the Program contains a lengthy discussion of flood and results of an exhaustive scientific search for the precise erosion hazards and a number of policies aimed at line of average high water. No legal significance att- minimizing the effects on such hazards.45 Policies aches to the exact identification along this portion of include building setback lines, the use of nonstructural the south shore of Long Island of refined hydrographic measures to minimize damages whenever possible and data . . "[t]he construction or reconstruction of erosion protec- .. .If a change is to be made in the procedures for tion structures... only if they have a reasonableproba- locating shore-side boundary lines to conform more bility of controlling erosion for at least thirty precisely hydrographicdata, in our view, suchinno- bility of controlling erosion for at least thirty precisely to hydrographic data, in our view, such inno- vation should be left to the Legislature."34 years .... The Dolphin Lane opinion might be construed as suggesting that a legistative adoption of the hydrogra- phic method would be appropriate. But the court NEW YORK'S makes any such potential "change ... in the [boundary location] procedures" difficult by characterizing the use of the "line of vegetation" as a well-established rule The public trust doctrine-the common-law theory of property and by emphasizing "the importance of that the public may use tidal waters for certain pur- stability and predictability in matters of title to real posesirrespectiveofwhoownstheunderlyinglands- property"", As a result of this opinion, a statute provid- has been applied in a somewhat more limited manner ing for the use of hydrographic data probably would be in New York than in some other coastal states. challenged as an unconstitutional taking of private The trust concept has been used as a rationale in property, even though earlier New York cases had casesupholding the repeal of earlier attempts to convey defined the boundary by reference to the tides.36 large areas of state-owned tidelands and subaqueous It is possible, of course, that the Dolphin Laneopin- lands toprivate interests. However, other judicial deci- ion might be limited by future case law to the peculiar sions have permitted grants of limited areas in which facts of the Southampton litigation. The Court of the courts found that public rights had been lawfully Appeals' disparagement of "refined hydrographic extinguished or restricted. data" may be disapproved in a case where such evidence New York's first major public trust case was Coxe v. is readily available. State" in 1895. One legal commentator has said that before Coxe the state's "courts had generally paid what amounts to mere lip-service to the idea of a public trust, B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location of and had occasionally denied that one existed at all.""' the Shoreline Coxe arose as a result of an 1868 act incorporating the Under New York law, those gradual, imperceptible Marsh Land Company and authorizing it to acquire changes in the shoreline termed accretion and erosion the state's title to lands beneath the tidal waters of generally result in movement of the upland/tideland Staten Island and Long Island for a proposed dike boundary." The legal effect is the same whether the system. In 1875 the Legislature repealed part of this changes are due to natural or artificial causes.38 statutory authorization. The Court of Appeals upheld However, the boundary is not shifted if the change is this repeal and decided that the 1868 act "was ... wholly avulsive, i.e., sudden and perceptible." By equating ineffectual to divest the state of its ownership of the avulsion with "sudden submergence,"'4 one court lands under water."" The court said: recently held that an upland owner had title to the ... . The title of the state to the seacoast and the shores furthest seaward line of a 1919 survey, except for por- of tidal rivers is different froin [that] which an individ- tions lost by erosion or gained by accretion. The court ual holds .... It is not a proprietary, but a sovereign also ruled that the owner had the right to ret laim the right; and ... a trust is engraf red upon this title for the area that had becomte "suddenly stblrerged" as distin- benefit of the public of which the state is powerless to guished from the portion lost through erosion.l' divest ioself."s5 Erosion is a serious problem ili New York. The U.S. Public trust principles were also applied to void a Army Corps of Engineers in 1981 calculated that 1685 colonial patent of II miles of tidelands, constitut- annual damages resulting from erosion and flooding ing the entire oceanfront of the Borough of Queens, along the 120-mile length of Long Island's south shore even though there had been no clear legislative redudi- exceed $30 million.42 Under extreme conditions, the ation of the patent.5' Pointing out that the grant had damages would be much more: been "to a private person for neither commercial nor 12 SHORE AND BEACH governmental purposes,"52 the court suggested that such extensive conveyances of waterfront property impaired "the state's ability and sovereign authority to fulfill its obligations to the public."5s Errta in "Part XI: On the othel hand, Neu York courts have upheld the . A Legislature's power to grant or to authorize grants of The Washington Approach" limited areas of tidelands to private parties when there is clear evidence of the intent to extinguish or restrict lnIortuna there were numerous pographia thte public's rights of access and passage. Cerrors in the last article in this series, "The Law of the The leading case on this point, People v. Steeple- Coast in a Clamshell: Part XI The Washington Ap- clase Park Co. ,4 involved an amusenent park at proach," Shore and Beanh, Vol. 51, No. 2, April 1983, pp. C(oneyE Island that was located on both uplands and 16-21. The more important errors should be corrected as tidelands. Mns. Huber, an upland owner, had obtained a state grant of the adjoining tidelands for her "benefi- i Page 16, quoted portion of 5th paragraph under cial enjoyment" without any restriction preserving "Tidelands' should read as follows public access and use. The Court of Appeals, citing the "lying within or in frontof hecorlx ratelimits oand cit. or withiin one mile thereof upon e'ither side and between long history of the state's conveyances of tide and sub- the line of ordinary high tide and the innet harbor line, merged lands to private persons and corporations, held and within two miles of the corporate limits on either side that Mrs. Huber's title was valid and that she was and the line of extreme low tide."22 empowered to exclude the general public from the 2. Page 17, 1st paragraph under "lUpland/Tideland granted tidelands.5$ Boundary," 3d line: change "or" to "of" The State of New York, in common with other coas- 3. Page 17, 2d paragraph under "Upland/Tideland tal states, is the trustee of the public trust under which Boundary," 6th line: delete "the" after "for" the state holds its tide and submerged lands. But 4. Page 17, last paragraph under "Upland/Tideland because of the colonial grants of lands beneath tidal Boundary," insert paragraph that was omitted: waters to certain municipalities, it appears that the It appears that, as a practical matter, the Borax "mean cities and towns are responsible for administering the high tide" rule is now being recognized as the property trust as to such lands granted to or otherwise acquired boundary. For example, a 1971 Washington appellate by them.56 Controversy has arisen over the power of court decision follows that rule, citing Borax and disre- local governments to restrict the use of municipally garding the vegetation line.-3 However, for regulators owned beaches to local residents.57 purposes, the vegetation line concept still has some While the traditional public trust doctrine clearly application.33 encompasses the right of navigation, some legal writers 5. Page 18, 8th paragraph under "Legal Effect of feel that even this right has been narrowly construed by Physical Changes in the Location of the Shoreline," 4th the New York courts."5 Yet, in a recent case, public line, change "held" to "said" recreation was recognized as an appropriate trust use. 6. Page 19, note 21, 5th line: change last "of" to "or" The court, however, qualified such use: 7. Page 20, note 58, 1st line: change '"The" to "'This" "When the tide is in, to use the water covering the 8. Page 20, note 58, 3rd line: change "republic" to foreshore for boating, bathing, fishing or other lawful "public" purposes; and when the tide is out, to pass and repass over the foreshore as a means of access to reach the water for the same purposes."59 PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS and that consequently the restrictive 1970 ordinance was void.63 The Geulirtz decision, based on an express Due to the colonial grants of tidelands and other intent to dedicate,64 thus differs from the California acquisitions, municipalities own some of Long cases on implied dedication of beaches and beach Island's most attractive beaches. During the past 25 accessways.65 years, as population and maintenance costs both in- The New York court's legal approach also contrasts creased, many of these cities and towns attempted to with that of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which held restrict use of these municipally owned beaches to local that the public trust doctrine prohibited a municipality residents.60 One such attempt was litigated in Geutirtz from imposing higher fees on nonresidents than on v. City of Long Beach.6' residents.66 But the practical effect of the two courts' The city had acquired the beachfront property in decisions is similar: opening municipally owned 1935-37. Federal funds had been used to stabilize the beaches to more people. beach and to improve it for recreational use. A city While Gerwitz may have encouraged other cities and ordinance created a beach park but did not limit the towns to lower the barriers to nonresidents' use of class of persons who could use it. Members of the gen- locally owned beaches,6? public access along privately eral public enjoyed the beach park until 1970, when the held portions of New York's shoreline remains limited. city passed a new ordinance restricting such use to In one case, for example, plaintiffs sought to open a Long Beach residents and their guests.62 private beach by invoking the legal theory of custom The court found that the city had expressly and irre- and usage. Despite evidence that the public had long vocably dedicated the beach to the general public's use, used the area to gain access to Long Island Sound for JULY 1983 13 bathing and boating, the court rejected plaintiffs' coastal zone" but "somewhat more comprehensive" attempt.68 The case contrasts sharply with the Oregon than the traditional dredge-and-fill laws.82 'rhe act, Supreme Court opinion holding, under a modified which defines "tidal wetlands" in terms of characteris- form of the ancient common-law doctrine of custom, tic vegetation,83 is intended to preserve and protect that the public may use the dry-sand portion of that those lands covered at soime time by the tides and cer- state's Pacific shore.69 tain designated adjacent lands."8 Following enactment Another approach toward increasing public ac- of the law, the state inventoried the tidal wetlands to cess -a requirement that a subdivider dedicate a beach determine which areas should be regulated. During the to the public as a condition for subdivision approval - inventory, there was a moratorium on alterations to was turned down by a New York court when the devel- these lands.85 oper established that allowing such access would To implement the Tidal Wetlands Act, the state appreciably lower the value of his property.70 commissioner of environmental conservation promul- Encouraging public coastal access is a goal of the gated land-use regulations in 1977.86 In general, regu- state's legislative and executive branches. The Water- lated activities within the boundaries of the designated front Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act,7' tidal wetlands cannot be conducted without a permit passed in 198 1, declares that it is necessary "[t]o achieve issued by the commissioner. Among regulated activities: a balance between economic development and preser- "[A]ny form of draining, dredging, excavation, dump- vation that will permit the beneficial use of coastal ing, filling, construction, pollutant discharge or any resources while preventing... diminution of ... public other activity which directly or indirectly impairs the access to the waterfront.... "and "[t]o encourage and tidal wetland's ability to provide [fish and wildlife] facilitate public access for recreational purposes."72 habitat."87 Local governments' waterfront revitalization pThe 1981 Coastal Erosion Hazards Act8 isacompre- grams under this act are required to provide for public hensive regulatory scheme applicable to designated access.73 coastal erosion hazard areas. The law provides for regu- The newly approved New York Coastal Manage- lation at the local, county and state levels in certain ment Program calls for protecting, maintaining and areas, such as those "determined as likely to be subject increasing "the level and types of access to public to erosion during a forty-year period."9 water-related recreation resources and facilities" and Anotherlawpassedin 1981,theWaterfrontRevitali- maintaining access to the publicly owned tidelands.74 zation and Coastal Resources Act,90 provides the legal authority for establishment of a comprehensive, coor- dinated coastal management program. This act de- PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS lares the public policy of the state in the coastal area and encourages local governments to develop optional New York's private upland owners enjoy the usual waterfront revitalization progams.91 These local pro- right of access to navigable waters adjoining their grams help implement the state's coastal goals property. To facilitate their access, they may erect and "through use of existing broad powers such as those maintain permanent structures extending over the tide- covering zoning and site plan review."'9 The Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resour- lands even though the public's passage along the shore is thereby impaired to some extent.75 ces Act, the Tidal Wetlands Act and the Coastal Erosion The littoral owners' right to construct floats, piers Hazards Act are only three of numerous state laws and wharves has been judicially upheld.76 However, embraced within the New York Coastal Management the courts have required that this right be reasonably Program.3 Approved by the Federal Government in exercised.77 September 1982, the program articulates 44 wide- ranging coastal policies with which all state agencies must be consistent. The New York Department of State LEASING AND REGULATION is responsible for administering the program and coor- OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS dinating its implementation by other agencies.94 A. Leasing The state's Department of Environmental Conserva- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS tion may lease state-owned tide and submerged lands (except state park lands) for the exploration and pro- The author is grateful to Robert C. Hansen, program duction of oil and gas.78 The prior approval of the manager, Department of State, State of New York, for Office of General Services, which administers state providing some of the source material cited in this lands not vested in another state agency, is required article. before such leases may be made.79 The commissioner of general services is authorized to enter into other types of REFERENCES leases of state-owned subaqueous lands, subject to lim- itations for lands bordering on Long Island.8o 1. Moss. The Lost iVaterfront of New York. 6 Ciastal Zone Man- agement J. 167, 168 (1979). B. Regulatory Functions 2. This charter was one of a number issued by the Dutch and English In 1973 the New York Legislature passed the Tidal colonial authorities for the benefit of rnuni(ipalities. Dutrh set- lemnent of the area now within the State of New York began in Wetlands Act,8' a measure that a legal commentator 1624 with Fort Nassau and in 1626 on Manhattan Island. I'he calls "far short of a complete regulation of the entire Dutch surrendered to the English in 1664; in 1673 the Dutch 14 SHORE AND BEACH recaptured New' York, but the English resumed control the next States v. Louisiana. 339 U.S. 699 (1950); United States v. Califor year. I R. Powell, The Laou of Real Property 1' 59 (Rev. ed. 1981). ma. 332 'U.S. 19 (1947). Among the earliest colonial patents to a municipality was the 23. See, e.g.. Tiffany %. Oyster Bay, 209 N.Y. 1. 102 N.E. 585 (1915) I)ut h governor's 1644 grant to the townsmen of Hempsread on Fulton Light, Heat & Puower Co., v. State, 200 N.Y. 400, 94 N.E. Long Island. which included underwater lands; in 1685 the Eng- 199 (1911). lish goverrnor i onfirmed the gran. These patents were theprinci- 24. See, e.g., Sage v. Mayor. 154, N.Y. 61, 47 N.E. 1096 (1897); Dun- pal sourtres of title to thc Town of North Hempstead. Comment. ham s. Tountshend, 118 N.Y. 218, 23 N.E. 367 (1890,; Stalte . (Coloinial Patents and Open Beaches, 2 Hofsira L. Re%. 301, 305- Bishop, 46 App. Di%. 2d 654, 359 N.Y.S. 2d 817 (2d Dep't 1974); 307 (1974). Board of Educ. v. Nyquist. 51 Misc. 2d 902, 274 N.Y.S. 2d 229 In Ii86 thomas Dongan, theEnglishltcolonial governor, issued (Sup. C:. Alban, Countl 1966). a/I'd, 28 App. Div. 2d 936, 281 the Cit, of New York a charter which granted to tie city the shore N.Y.S. 2d 486 (3d Dep't 1967). around Manhattan Island between the high-water and low-water 25. Humbat h & Gale, Tidal Title and the Boundaries of the Bay. The nmarks. In 1730 a setond royal tchartter confirmed the original Case of the Submerged ''High Water'' Mark, 4 Fordham Urb. L.J. ehatter arid granted ihe cii', additiotnal tide-covered lands at the 91, 103 n.62 (1975). southern end of Manhattan. The grants to New York CiGy were 26. Dolphin L.ane ,4isoc. s. Town of Southampton, 37 N.Y'. 2d 292. ratified by the olonial legislature in 1732and b) the people in the 333 N.E. 2d 358. 372 N.Y.S. 2d 52 (1975). first New York State (;onstiutiiont in 1777. Similar colonial grants 27. Id. at 297. 333 N.E. 2d at 360. 372 N.YS. 2d at 54. Thisaspect of the of tidelands were made to various Long Island towns and munic- dec ision has been criticized: ''It may bt sceriously at gued that this ipalities, e.g., Brooklhaven, East Hampton, Northport, Oyster practice of surveyors was followed only in cases where the survev Bay, Southampton. Set Tillinghast. Tide-Flou'ed Lands and was lot purposes other than lotating rihc boundary at the Riparian Rights in the United States, 18 Hari. L. Re%. 341. shore....Historically, both surveyors and thc court of appeals 351-352(1905). For a somewhai diffe'renI view of the effect of these recognized the distinction between the high water line and the colonial charters, see Parsons. Public and Private Rights in the edge of the marshlands, and that the former was controlling in Foreshore, 22 Colum. L. Res'. 706, 722-725 (1922). boundary disputes .... Itdoes not seem reasonable toassume that 3. State of Neu, York Coastal Management Program and Final there was a discrepancy between surveying practice and a clear Entironmenital Impact Statement [hereinafter cited as NYCMP] line ol decisions,going back toa least 1890, holding that the line 11-2-7 (August 1982). The program was prepared under the Coas- of high water is the boundary...." Humbach &: Gale, supra, note tal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. � 1451 et 25, 4 Fordham Urb. L.J. at 112 n. 104 (emphasis in original). seq. See also Moss, supra, note 1.6 Coastal Zone Management J. at 28. Title was held for the town by the Trustees of the Freeholders and 167-168, 173-183, for a critical analysis of the management of the the Commonality of the Town of Southampton. The town's titI' New Y'ork City waterfront. is traceable to the grant by the king of England to the dukeof York 4. The Coastal Management Program sets forth 44 coastal policies. and the royal charters issued under his colonial government; the Polic , I is to "[rjestore, revitalize. and redevelop deteriorated and first chapter to the inhabitants of what is now the town was issued underutilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultu- in 1676. Id. at 104 n. 65, 105-106 n. 76. ral, recreational and other compatible uses." NYCMP. supra, 29. The lower court opinion is reported at 72 Misc. 2d 868.339 N.Y.S. note 3, at 11-6-5. 2d 966 (Sup. Ct. Suflfolk County 1971), afl'd, 43 App. Div, 2d 727, 5. See, e.g., Policies 3 (port expansion). 6 (expediting permit proce- 351 N.Y.S. 2d 364 (2d Dep't 1973). dutes), 10 (expansion ofcommercial fishing industry)and 27and 30. "Ont' type, Spartina alternflora (cordgrass), thrives naturally 29 (coastal energy resource development). Id. at II-6-17, II-6-31, only if inundated twice daily by the tides. The other type of grass, 11-6-5i, 11-6-145, 11-6-155. Spartita patens.r (salt hay), thrives only in areas beyond the reach 6. See Policies 19, 21 and 22. Id.at II-6-89, 1-6-99, I-6-107.11-6-115. of the twice-dail, tidal inundations....The [trial] court did not 7. Id. at 11-2-1. Since this series has focused on the law of the coast hold that these plants fixed the boundar) as a matter of law but along the open sea and in estuarine areas, this article does not only that their growth was 'indicative of the tidal flow for all the discuss the law with respect to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence months of the year, over the course of several years.' Accordingly. River portion of New York's coastal zone. the line was to be in the intermediate strip between the primary 8. Ibid. grow'th areas of thi. twso types of grass." Humbach g& Gale. supra, 9. Id. at 11-2-8. note 25, 4 Fordham Urb. L.J. at 107 (footnotes omitted). 10. Id. at 11-3-6. 31. 37 N.Y. 2d at 296, 333 N.E. 2d at 359. 372 N.Y.S. 2d at 54. 11. Id. at 11-3-5-6. 32. Critics of the decision assert that the Court of Appeals "has set the 12. This classification is used for convenience and consistency with high water line on the bottom of the bay." Humbach & Gale, other articles in this series. However, the term foreshore is fre- supra, note 25, 4 Fordham Urb. L.J. at 108 (footnote omitted). quently used in New York case law and legal writings to refer to The) claim that, "[b]y locating the linear the seaward edge of the the lands between the lines of high and low tide, i.e., tidelands. Spartina alhernillora, a plant which needs tidal inundation twice- 13. Ser' "Leasing and Regulation of Coastal Zone Lands and Waters," daily, ," the court "has probably in effect fixed the 'high water line' trfra. at the lou, water line, since Sparitia alterniflora is apparently nor 14. Dcveney, Title, Jus Publirum, and the Public Trust: An Hisfora- a water plant living in areas continuously under water." Id. at 108 cal Analysis, I Sea Grant L.J. 13, 58 (1976); Tillinghasr, supra, and n. 84 (emphasis in original). note 2, 18 Hary. L. Rev. at 351-352; Parsons, supra, note 2, 22 33. Borax, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10(1935). Under this (,olum. L. Rev. at 722-725. decision, which is followed when federal law controls and is 15. Comment, supra, note 2, 2 Hofstra L. Re%', at 313-315. accepted as the rule expressly or impliedly by a number of states, 16. For a brief discussion of the grants in Massachusetts pursuant to the mean of all the high waters over an 18.6-year tidal cycle is the colonial ordinance of 1647, see Shore and Beach, Vol. 50, No. used. For a brief discussion of Borax, see Shore and Beact, Vol. 48, 1, January 1982, pp. 13-14. No. 54, October 1980, pp. 17-18. 17. Taylor, The Seashore and the People, 10 Cornell L. Q. 303, 310 34. 37 N.Y. 2d at 295-296, 333 N.E. 2d at 359-360. 372 N.Y.S. 2d at (1925). 53-54. 18. MAlartin v. IW'addell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367, 408 (1842). See also 35. Id. at 296-297, 333 N.E. 2d at 359-360, 372 N.Y.S. 2d at 54-55. Taylor, supra, note 17, 10 Cornell L.Q. at 310. 36. Humbach & Gale,supra, note 25,4 Fordham Urb. L.J.at 126-128. 19. Id. at 316-319. For an example of a statutory clarification of the problems of 20. See, e.g., People v. Steeplechase Park Co., 218 N.Y. 459, 113 N.E. determining the legal boundary, see the discussion of the Florida 521 (1916), which involved a state grant to part of the beach that Coastal Boundary Mapping Act of 1974 in Shore and Beach, Vol. the public previously had used. The public's right of passage was 49, No. 3, July 1981, p. 14. prevented by piers erected by the new private owner. The court 37. See, e.g., Mlatter of City of Buffalo, 206 N.Y. 319, 99 N.E. 850 held that the public could be excluded because the state had not (1912); Laukins v. City ofNeu, York, 272App. Div. 920.71 N.Y.S. restricted the grantee's title. See additional discussion under 2d 112 (2d Dep't 1947). "New York's Public Trust Doctrine," infra. 38. State v. Bishop, supra,. 46 App,. Di,. 2d 654, 359 N.Y.S. 2d 817. 21. 67 Stat. 29; codified at 43 I.TS.C. � 1301 et seq. 39. People v. Steeplechase Park Co., supra, 82 Misc. 247, 143 N.Y.S. 22. fnittedStatesv. Maine, 420 U.S. 515,517-518(1975).Thedecision 503; Afulrv v. Norton, 100 NY'. 424, 3 N.E. 581 (1885). was based on United States v. Texas, 339 IU.S. 707 (1950); United 40. GeC;cnerally, submergenceisconsidered to mearn thegradualdisap. JULY 1983 s15 pearance of land under water and the formation of a body of water 66. For a hrief discussion (if Boroug~h of Neptune (.ity v. Bo ough of over it. See "Shoreline Changes: A Legal Lexicon," Shore and Avyon-bV-the-Sea. 61t N.J. 296. 294 A. 2d 417 (1972i. see Share anid Beach, Vol. 50, No. 3, July 1982, p. 18. Beach, Vol. 50, No. 2. April 1982, 1p. I 1. 41. Trustees of Freeholdersv. Healr'er, 84 Misc. 2d 318, 331, 375 N.Y.S 67. Comment, .11f)Ta, note 58, 14) Columin JL. 9c So(. Ptah. ait 223 2d 761. 773 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 1975). [ntelesiogl~, 11th staie's highe-st (ouri itnsali(Lifd ai., illage's Ioni- 42. N YCM P. supra, noie 3. at 11.5- 13, 11-5-21 n. 7. iogordlinua tc iha IW t] wd has u-eli ii a ic-tl pu11blic beat bcv% iii o der 413. Id. at 11-5-13, 11-5-21 n. 6. to benefit its i usidelis. Itirorpora ed V illage of Illovd llarbcsr -14. N.Y. Environ. Conserv. Law � 34-0101 et seq. (Supp. 1982). Toccn of Iicntitngton, I N.Y. 2d 182, 1 19 N.E. 2d 851, 173 N.Y.S. 415. N YCMP, .supra, note 3, at 11-5-11-20, 11-6-55-87. 2d 553 (1958). fii antiohetr c ase, tie coont held that tea( hc's aiid 416. Id. at 11-6-55, 11-6-63, 11-6-75. parks are maitters of statewvide-concern, traniscendinig puiely inte'r- 17. 144 N.Y. 395, 39 N.E. 400(1895). The New York Courtof Appeals' ests. A4tlantic Beat/i Property Ow4ners Attisn v.Town of Ilemp- opinion followed the rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court's .ttead, 3 N.-Y. 2l -13, 111II N. E. 2d 1109, 165 N.Y.S. 2d 737 (1957). See landmark decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 196 Note, sopra, note 60, .18 N.Y.U'.L. Re%. at 388. U.S. 387 (1892). 68. Gillte~sv. Ornenta Beach Club, 159,NMisc. 675. 289 N.YS. 733 (Sop. 48. Deveney, iupra, note 14, I Sea Grant L.J. at 63-64 (footnotes Ct. WVestchester Countyt 1935). aff'd. 218 App. Div. 623, 288 N. Y'S. omitted). 136 (2d Dep't 1936). 49. 144 N.Y. at 404, 39 N.E. at 403. 69. For a brief discussion (if State ex rel. Thornton %. Ilav, 254 Or. 50. Id. at,105-406, 39 N.E. at 402. Fordetaileddiscussionsof the Coxe 584,462 P. 2d 671 (1969). sece Shoreanl Bleach, Vol. 50. No. 2, July decision, see Deveney, supra, note 14, 1 Sea Grant L.J. at 63-66; 1982, pi). 16-17. 19-20. Berland Toward the True Meaning of the Public Trust, I Sea 70. East NVeck Estates, Ltd. %. Lichsinger, 61 Mi-sc. 2d 619. 305 N.YS. Grant L.J. 83, 126-129(1976). See id.at 129-131 foradiscussionof 2d 9221 (Stip. (It. Suffolk COMMit 19ci9). atiother decisioitapproving a subsequent legislative repudiation 71. N. Y. Exec. Law � 9 10 et seq. of a grant. Long .Sault Development Go v. Kennedy, 212 N.Y. 1. 72. Id. � 912. 105 N.E. 849 (19141) (St. Lawrence River). 73. Id. � 915. 5I. ,(arba Sea Bay Corp. v. Clinton Street Realty Corp., 272 NA'. 292, 74. NYCMP, 5upra, note 3, at 11-6-89-106. See also id. at 11-5-23-25, 5 N. E. '2d 824 (1936). app. A- 1-3 (administisratii rules adopted to imnplemxenxt the Water- 52. Id. at 296. 5 N.E. 2d at 825. front Resitalization and Coastal Resources Act). 53. Berlanid, supra, note 50, 1 Sea Grant L.J. at 134. 75. See, e.g., Barne~s v.,Iidland H.R. Terminal Co., 193 N. Y. 378, 386. 54. 218 N.Y. 459, 113 N. E. 521 85 N.E. 1093, 1096 (1908). 55- For detailed discussions ofthe Steeplechasedecision, see Deveney. 76. See, e.g.,.Hmnkley v. .State of Neu' York, 23.1 N.Y. 309, 317-3 18, 137 sp anoe14, 1 Sea Grant L.J. at68-7 1; Berland, supra, noe50. I N. E. 599, 601 -602 i 12) ono okae .Snih 8 .Y Sea Grant L.J. at 131-132. 74. 80-82, 8ON.E. 665. 667-668 (1907); tfn guenot Yacht Club v. 56. One legal commentator states: "In general, the courts have held Lion, 43 Misc. 2'd III, 250 NY.S. 2d .518, 5541-556 (Scip. Ct. that such (colonial Igrants conveyed title tobe held by the towns Westchester Countv 1964). See also N.'tY. Env iron. Conser%. Law � in their political capacity for the public good, and that such title 1l5.0503(4)(d) tSupp. 1982) (permit riot required for small (locks). 'passed' the jus publicumn [public trust rights] to the extent that 77. Barnes v. Midland R.R. Terminal Co'., supra, 193 N.Y. 378, 85 the towns could exclude the general public from the beaches and N.E. 1093. See also (:onimenii. sopra. note 58, 10 Columt. J.L. & grant exclusive rights to shellfish and stake-net fishing in the Soc. Prob. at 202-204. When state permits for dock consirie tion waters, but could not interfere with free fishing or navigation by are required. the Departmetit of Etivironimental Conservation, in the general public." Deveney, supra, note 14, I Sea Grant L.J. at determining whether to grant a permit, must "ascertain the prob- 58 (citations omitted). Seealso Humbach kGale, supra, note 25, 4 able effe-ct on the health. safeiv and welfare of the people ... and Fordham Urb. L.J. at 96-97 n. 34:; Comment, supra. note 2. 2 the effect ont the natural resources of the state likely to result from Hofstra L. Rev. at 319-322: Comment, Can New York's Tidal such construction . .."N.Y. Environ. Ccoiserv. Law � ISi- Wetland~s Be Sac-ed? A Constitutional and Common Law Solu- 0503(3)(a) (Stipp. 198-91. tion, 39 Albany L. Rev. 451, 479-482 (1975). 78. N.Y. Enviroti. Const-rv. Law � 23-1 101(1)(att b) (Stipp. 1982). 57. See ''Public Access Rights," infra. 79. Id. � 23-Il 01(2)(cl i (Suipp. 1982); N. Y. Pitt). Lands Law � 3{ I) 38. See, e.g.. Cotnrment, .supra. note 2. 2 H-ofstra L. Rev. at 316-318; (Supp. 1982). Comment. Von-Resident Re~striction~s in Municipally Owned 80. Pub. Lands Law � 3(2)15 (Supp. 1982). Beaches:,.4ppro~achesto the Problem. 10 Colun. J.L. &-Soc. Prob. 81. N. Y. Environ. Conserv. Lawe � 25-0101 et seq. (Suxpp. 1982). 177, 201. 206 (19741). 82. Commment. supra. note.56.39 Albany L. Rev. at 157. .59. Tucci v'. .Salzhauer, 69 Misc. 2d 226, 234, 329. N.YS. 2d 825, 834 83. N.Y. Environ. Conserv. L-kw � 25-0103(l)(b) Stiupp. 1982). (Sup. Ct. Nassau County 1972). 84. The law applies to batiks, bogs, salt tmarshu, swamirps. mteadows. 60. Note, Public Access to Beaches: Common Law Doctrine and flats or "otlier low lands subject to tidal action -- Id. � "25- Constitutional Challenges, IS8 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 369. 379-380 n. 83 0103(l)(a) (Supp. 1982). See also id. �(� 25-0102. 25-0202 (Supp. (1973). 1982). 61. 69 Misc. 2d 763, 330 N.YS. 2d -195 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County 1972). 85. Id. �� 25-0201. 25-0202. aff'd, IS App. Div. 2d 841, 358 N.YS. 2d 957 (2d Dep't 1974). 86. N.Y.C.R.R.. pi. 661. See NYCMP, ~supra, note 3, app. E. 66-83. 62. 69 Misc, 2d at 763-769. 330 N. Y.S. 2d at .199-503. 87. Id. at 11-6-39. 63. Id. at 773-77-4. 780. 330 N.Y. S. 2d at 508. 514. 88. N.Y. Environ. Cotnserv. Law � 14-0101 et seq. (Stipp. 1982). 64. For detailed discussions of the Gewirtz- decision, see Comment, 89. Id. � 34-0103J)3)a) (Supp. 1982). .supra, note 2. 2 lioifstra L. Rev. at 302. 329-332; None. supra, note 90.N.A'. Exec. Law � 910 et seq. 60, 48 N.Y.LU. L. Rev. at 377-380. 387-389; Comtmentn, supra, note 91. Id. �� 910, 9121-91-1. 58, 10 Colum. J. L. & Soc. Prab. at 178 n. 8. 222-22-1. 92. NYCNIP, supra, txote 3, at II- 1-4. 65. For a brief discussion of Gion v. City 01 Santa Cruz and Dietz v. 93. For a list of the statutes ito be relied upoii in imiplementitig the King, 2Cal. 3d 29,465 P.2d 50. 84Cal. Rptr. 162 (1970), see Share p arograin. see id. at 11-4-1 1-15. and Beach, Vol. 49, No. 2. April 1981, p. 2.3. 94. Id. at 11-4-3. 16 SHORE AND B3EACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XIII: The Hawaii Approach BN, PEiTER H. F". GRABRE of flr" oft IIh AI torn('v Celr 1, State of (Califorfla San Francisco California S INCE PREHISTORIC DAYS, WIWIn the tips Of VOlC-a- ining the( contemporary law of the coast-especially noes pierced the Pacifi( Ocean's surface and with respect to tidie to anid boundaries of littoral lands, S formied ilthefirstllinks in the chaini,the HawNaiiant public beach access anid private fishing rights-an Islands have been wvedded to the sea. Almost half of the( understanding of some key events in Hawaii's colorful Suite of Hawaii's land area IS w-ithin .5 miles of the historv is essential.,,, ocean, and no point Is more than 29 miles fromi the When Capt. James Cook- "discovered'' the Hawaiian shoreline.' islands ii 1778, they wer(ca numbet(r of sm-allkinagdomrs. Extending 1 .7001 miles across ffhe Pac-ific, the Aloha King Kameihamnela I unified the Islands and founde-d State consists of eight major islands-the highecst part the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1810. The king held title to of a largely subme'rged volcanic mountain range-and all land, with the warrior chiefs having use of various I 16 minor islands.2' The state's 750-mile coast" en- areas at his discretion. until the mid- 19th century, the comtpasses such diverse areas as the( highly' urbanized land tenure system wvas essentially fc'udal. 'The basic Waikiki Beach (Fig. I) ont 0ahu and the( precipitous unit of Hawaiian prop~erty was the rahupuanc, which 1,000-foot-high Na Pali Cliffs onl Kauai. usuallv ran from the mountains to the sea, entitling the When the Polyncsian ancestors of the Hawaiian chief and his people to obtain fish from INe ocean and people Settled the~ Islands between 500 and 7.50 A.D., fuel, canoe timber, and] birds from the mountains.''' they lived along thecoast.1 And most of today's throngs With the influx of American missionaries and other of touirists are housed in resortis, hotels and condomini- foreigners, pressures mounted to change the ancient umis near the ofceanl. Hawaiian System of landholding.'2 In 1845 a Board of The contemporary law of the coast in Hawaii reflects Land Commissio~ners to Quiet Land T-itles-coin- the Islands' close ties to the sea. The state's Supreme nmonly known as the Land Commission-was created Court looked hrack to ancient Hawaiian custom in to investigate and confirmn privates individuals' claims deciding where to fix coastal property boundaries, of rights in lands." "~Its decisions, subject only to thereby expanding shore areas copen to the public.6 apj)(al to) the Hawaii Supreme Court, were to be based State officials arealso lookingahead, studying the legal on existing law of the kingdom, lincluding 'native issues involved iii ocean thermal energy~ conversion usages in regard to landed tenures..'''1 (OTE(;). or the use of the( templerature' differences However, ''[i he Westerner-dominated [Land] Corn- betwe-en wvarm anid cold ocean water to produce energy.7 mission perceived its goal to be a total defeudalization and partition of undividted interests'" in the lands.'5, HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1.Uidcr the traditional ]anid system,. ... holdings of the king, chiefs and cotnmoners were intertwined and Hawaii's land laws, are- uniqlue among INe states undivided(.''" In 1848 King Kamehanieha III divided because 'they are- basc'd onl ancient [Hawaiian] tradil- his private lands from thec interests of 245 chiefs and tioti, customn, p~ractice' and usage,' according to the koiiohilki in the (;reat Maliele-(Divisioni).' ''The trans- state s ~')tinCot.AlhuhHawaiiadopited thle formation to) file modern Hawsaiian land system was Etglisli comimot lavv onl Nov. 25, 1892, 'its adoption [usqetycmltc ycetn omlzdmca w~as Subj'ctto eariei(rtHawaiian uisage-.9 Thus, incexami- nismns fcor the( sale of government lands and by allowing ____________ ~~~~~~~~aliens to own land. . .. By 1852, thousands of acres of ih~ J IrS ,~. ,.~, ~.r.... o........ .'.'"' Is npilaij '1., prime Hawaiian land were in the( hands of foreignc'rs."1' iijTh'ifl I,, ,,,j~l~,,i~. i.iis. 1 ~ i~i'~ii~ iih i~iiiii The monarchy was overthrown in 1893, a year after Isis'iii" Slt si5ij 1- 4~ I.' i ..! ~.,.du. di~,ssi'. pI.'s.II'SP." Hawvaii's conditional adoption cof the cot itimon law. In P,'~ ~ ~ridi~r~isir"J", , ,, ii"is IIs... s.......,s. ds.ii.s I "I" ,1,,,. 189-1 thit' "piaovi sional governmeti t. .established the ,,f Ih, 010,-1 11s~-.41ss1s r,,.a. si. .isss.''. ''~........ I iNs.ia W Re publi( of H awvaii, which lasted until annexation (ICo ,~~~~~~~~~~2j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l( UnsistheI ntd States] il I 898.''' By thils tilm-, Westerners, OCTOBER 1983 9 jdA El '..~ , ' ..- ,_*?_ -' , . - ,zn ; -- i- " -1 - -- _~.4 4~~~r* - " ' Fig. 1. High-rise hotels and condominiums overlook famed Waikiki Beach in Honolulu. The beach stretches from Ala Wai Boat Harbor to Diamond Head. Kapiolani Park is on the right. (Hawaii Visitors Bureau photo.) who made uIp) only 9 percent of the Islands' population, For (onvenilctce, lands within the Hawaii coastal owned 67 percent of the taxal)le lands.20 Until achiev- zone may t)e classified as tuplands. tideleands and stLb- ing statehood in 1959, Hawaii was administered as a merged lands. territory of the United States.2' A. Uplands TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN Most uplands within Ihe coastal zone are privatcly THE COASTAL ZONE owned, although fetleral,7 state alnll local gove'rmnuntln- tal entities have title to somie prime property along the Hawaii's coastal zone, as defined in the state's Coast- shoreline. A recent claim by the City and County of al Zone Managemenit Program, includes most of the Honolulu that private parties could not own an off- populated and devecloped parts of the Islands, encom- shore island was rejected. The Hawaii Supreme Court passing all land areas except forstate forest reserves and held that King Kamehanmeha III ha d the power in 1850 federally owned or adlitinistered lands.22 However, the toconvey Mokolii Island t the owners pedecesors.T most intensive regulation of lands within the zone Useof privately owned eUpl ands adjoining the shore- takes place in the shorcline special management areas line is subject to setback requiirements and other strict (SMAs), the inland limnits of which the counties were regulatory controls.29 reU(lired to aniltcnd under the Itawaii CZM Act of 1977.2-1 The coastal zone extend(ls seaward to the outer limits B. Tidelands of the United States territorial sea, as provided in the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.24 As The Hawaii Coastal Zone Maniagemnent Prograin discussed below, however, the State of Hawaii has flatly asserts that the state "owns all shoreline or hbeat h asserted jurisdiction over the archipelagic or channel areas" landward "to the highest reach of the waves, tas waters hetween its islands. Consequently, the Hawaii evidenced by the vegetation or debris line, whi hoever is CZM Program notes that thie state is not relinquishing higher."30 But early Hawaiian case law states that dur- or waiving "its rights, authority, orclaimis, present and ing the monarchy the king had the power to convey future, over those waters within the State's jurisdiction lands down to the low-water mark into private owner- that exist outside the seaward boundary of the Hawaii ship,:' suggesting thtat some tidelands may be privately CZM Program area. "25 held. 10 SHORE AND BEACH Whcue admitited to t lie, U.nion Aug. 21, 1959, the Starte In re A.s hf'd ,~" a I 968 H-awai i Supieinte COmit case, of H-a'a ii suc tCeded IIIV Iiti tot ia I g0Ver~nnient as involved la md originally intcluded tin two royal p~atents (Xs'II(It of all publidl heldcc tidelands>-- H-awai i was issued iln 1866 ill Whitch the ?1 kal (Seawat d ) bounda- admii ctie ott ant equal looting withi the otlier staitcs," ries1were describe)d asJIIII running tma kt' (ki (alIO]ng the Sea). at d liters hlas tli sai me jultisdjet ionl antd sovereign t% over Thei court defintied tta t Ha wai ian tet ni ats nicaning its t idelatuls as the original statcS. aloiig the uppciet reat lies of the wash of wvavcs Lat ot dinary high tide J, usually evide-nced by cthe edge of vegetatioti or by tite l ine of debrits It-it by the wash of C. Submerged Lands Wit VS."4t T(1 suplport its views ol how the boundary should be Vnt ide thli Adni ssion Act anid the Stbibciergd LtId definted and loca ted, the uourt's tmajori ty stressed that Ac t .1 I lawa ii has t it I()t su biergcd lands within a ' i ancet eti ttadi tion, c ustotn, practicecand usage''aie the :4-Lgogi aphdica I-u i Ic belt at ound ca(ch of Its islands. bases to] I lawa ii's land laws.S." oneut sit is per Situ i( the late I970s the starte has asset ted an at( hi pe- it issi bIc undert tite Ashfotd dec(ision I( introduce"rp lag cI( i lin l -]'aste ara -T c "lati tn is based on miitajoti evidence'' about tite- locat ion of the( bciurdarN IIIe p] uti iple ithat all the H-awaiian Islands Should be through testimlony~ by a mnaainn wit tussvs, Ill., persons (ontldic d legally a sitngle entiitv and] therefore the( familiar ft ot (lui dhood with a locality or 'speccial I hlanttttl at s betweeni the( islandcs should fall within taught and made repositories'' of kntowledge passed Hawcaii's territorial jurIsdiction.-`-1 from igeneration to generation about ancient Hawaiian The I la~vaii State Constitution was amended it 1978 custom.41' The majority cotucluded that the trial court tasetstate jurisdiction over the archipelagic waters: had erred in finding that thel boundary, is thte intersec- Tlie Stalc Shall htavc the power to iaitagc and tion of the tidal datum of meart higit water with eathe (oi ld tOw marine.(- Seabed arid] oilier resources withinl shore,"' a litte more favorable to the upland owners ili(. hioudnla iWs of thn' Starte. mcltudttg the ar iipipeagit thait to the stateo. laeso'il .heSlaft, anid re-seres lo itself all Stull rights In a lengthy dissent, just ice iatrurnoto warned that cLtal (fe statebouiidarie lttsecawalylmtd .fd the A.Mhford decision would have a far-reaching future etal uu itireruit ititial lawimpact.5t' lHe argu('d that the( majority opinion was To ill Iutde those ait chi;)elagic waters within its boun- .Itteonsistent wital earlier Hawaii case law td govern- daries, Ilie Hawaii Constitution was amended litt 1978 m-enttal survey practice.5' He also chastizcd the state foi- to 1p1 ovide: l"asking this court ...to declare as the law for the " ..IlieStare of flawaii shall, otisist of all the islands, determination of the seaward boundaries of private IoL~('thrr with diicit appurtenant reefs and territorial lands .. a practice primitive Iin concept and haphazard ratId arnhpelag?(w 'aerts, inducerf('c in the( Territoty of in application and result.' Hawaii onl thte date of the( nia~mctntit of the Admission Five years later, the Hawaii Supreme Court refined Act .."' and applied the Ash fo-rd rule in County of Hawaii' V. Therefore, if the state's ''claim cannot be proven as of Sotom ura.51 This case arose from the countv's con- 1959, the Constitution makes no claim to archipelagic deinnation of a park site at Kalapana Black Sand Beach waters at all. "'s (Fig. 2), a popular tourist attraction and surfing spot For Hawaii to prevail in its claim to archipelagic onl the Big Island. waters, it must overcomec a 1965 dec isioti of the U.S. Solomura involved an unusual fact situation; there Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. lIt Island Air- had been pre-A~shford land court proceedings in which hnems, InC. v. C.A.B.,19 that tribunal affirm-ed a lower the seaward boundary of the privately owned parcel federal court's holding that the state's jurisdiction did had been located along thel limtu (seaweed) line,5" but nuor emnbra~c ethe chiannels between the islands. The the shoreline had eroded before the condemnation law- lowver court had( conicluded that these- channel waters suit was brouglit. Among the( issues: (1) whether the were interna tionalI waters. erosion would have any legal effect ott the boundary Thte State- of H-awaii was not a party to the( Island (thle State Supreme Court held that it did, a point dis- ilirlinci, litigation.40' and has argued that it is nor pre- cussed below), and (2) if so, the pioper method of locat- cluded by that decision from asserting its archipelagic ing the new boundary. w.Naters clit'n.41 The state's claim remains unresolved.42 The high court held that the trial judge had correctly ruled that tie( new, location of the boutidary, as nian- dated by Ashf ord, was alon)ig 'the( upper reaches of the DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES wash of the wvaves,"15 but had erred lin locating the boundary, along the debris line rather titan the vegeta- A. Upland/Tideland Boundary tion line." The( court stated: It is generall', recognized that tlte- legal boundary ''We hotld as a martter of law that wherec the wash of dividittg Hawaiian piaeonr'pltcsft oui state- the( Nvaves is mayrked by both a debris line and a vegeLa- ow Nned tidelands is the high-water mnark-.1 But manty tioin litie lying further ma uka f lndar];th II(-gal I different terms have been used, biotht lin III( Hawaluan y-lnloli auft h Ull)- II ce o h w io language atd in Eiigl isli ,to descriibe tlie seaiwardI-jutitiis ntbt waves over a course of it yeat lit's l,51c ]alotig Owhe in 211a~kiotg 111v edge, of v'egetation growlin....[ WIlt 1ilt' the of privatec lands in Land Commission awat ds, ro~a dt-lo is linec ma', Ithatge ftorm daiv to dai or front scasoti pa t('ui ts arid deeds.44 And recent cofliti)i decisiolsblr eS , thic w-('g'alioti Ill tieis i tt ei 1erinuanentt state, and federal courts dentotnisrate the( dliffiiculies of mnotumentt, its gtowtll linititecl by~ tit' year 5 highe-st act na 1ll lo at inig the legal bottitdar, oil the gt otutd. Isash of tlhe waves."'- OCTOBER 1983 11 InI CeatcIIing IIIis om I ius ion, II I court sait itha IIu s at IIIe ti Ie of iltII Wxa tit)IIi,1c Rte I I'(epit ()If I law-aii ''Ihad Ish ford decision Iliadl hbeen"'t jiIt idit il I t ogi IitIiot IIof aIIl illtII I'5t i II ~iti LIfVI; t Iso bce Icd('( IO IoII erCiIitoi IN,() long-standing public use of I lawa ii's beau hes to art [ite I Iawa I ian IIs fit Is, wlther v thIIrot igh (oII C St, (1 i'st (- easily recognirable l)oundaIN, Ithat lixis ripened ilto a overy, or voICaruc( a(ctivity",' and hat.1 'any la~a e.X[ril- Customary right."' '"( )fie rat ionalae for selecting (t(e Sion Ilhereahter Ci Icated shoulid ble (ott sidvlei edo be mtost landward of tihe three ]lines considered (the 1inn allionrg the 'landsarid plopetties ... ecded toldic Uflitcd or seaweed li ne, the dehris litte and thle edge of vegeta- States by [fie Republic...' ifon ): "Public policy, ats limiterlreted Ily thils court.11corwacoend htraltngaavetn- favkors eXtend~ing to publli( uise arid ownier-ship ats inuch Sion to a littor'al ow ner wVould ainoun111 t 0 a wi nufa If: of Hlawaii' s shorluinle its is reasonlably possible.'.59. ....If at one-third a( it' pMice froainirg tIhu occll Su~bse IIentf MIN lawi Su~premeI Court cases have ci te(I I flowed e,(r bN lifev whidl atdds one to) twNo seawrkd and followed the AIslftordSotom nra boundary, rule, acrcs tonr li parcel, is it equiiilabf)ie rat its ownier ac~quireI declaring that "the true mneasure of high water niark tin I~oetvwhid i is th pee of 'six tirnes [lie si/c of thec this jurisdiction is the uippler reaches of the wash of thle plvi~t'xuiitg plar(cPI If a it IioaIIl mvwner is to, bh alles waVes."''0 As it broad proposition, boundaries of real crilpet-liuctd [for hlaa desrctlior in, sho(uld II)[it art proprtyaedeermied ndcrtat Iakcxcpt wheire a Laild pasture or frit] l owitet hc also tolipt11ieisctd w% ith propertyare detrrni nedutt~ferstate la exceptpiature or fLIErIn hlid falho: die-(lein tiot io of whdat had federal quLestionl Is involved or- there is anl overriditng I)Cet Ithe(I fiif Cm mmIiit it atiriutte of IIis I).II eIf. federal interest that M ust be protected." 'FTherefore, thle " Rathe Ir II11 IitIi alm Iw ig onlIIy a1 fewN% ()f the rrar Iit% it .lsh ford Sotomura rutle generally. would appear- to be victillis tEll %%iii(Ial ()f la~a eXtenision",II[" thi roif con trolling in H-awaii. But the matter reniaints c louded b-lieves- ifia[ eqtil itvaild sound Iubll~i p olicy (tleriaii because of language in a recent federal court decision."2 that such landi fintuer too the h)eitefi of all theC popcipl of After the state Supremne Court ruled against the I Ialiaii itt whose behalf tliegomuerrirter at is as trustee. pnoperty owners in the S'olom nra case, they sought . 'I7 relief in federal Court. In 1978 the United States Dirstrict Fi aaiSir~n or.aprnl o h is Court for- Hlawaii held that the owners had been denied timie, was asked to deo lide oin the legal e-ffect of erIosion dtie pro0Cess under the 14th Amendmnent to the U15 onl property boundaries in thle p~reviously dhiscussed Constitution on several grounds."iThe federal tribunal swolonura case. The court, rioting the absence of evi- also concluded that the state court's -retroac tive appli- dnene of Hawaiian customn onl the questionl, resorted to cation of the Ash ford standards to Iocate ithe seaward Common(t-law princip~les andro held that the stare gains boundary . .. at the vegetation line,.... %.,was so radical Ia title to eroded latid.7. [in another case, [Ile high courIt departure from prior state law as to constitute a taking held that the state could chiallentge the location of at of [their] property by the State of Hawaii withouttjust shoreline boundary of p~roperty registered itt the land compensation. 6 court when a new survey shows a line further inland Trhe U.S. District Court sharply criticized the I-lawati and a portioto of thle property h)as been submerged by court's Sotomu ra decision, asserting that ''all retlevant erosion."3 precedent,'' other than Ash ford, (demonotstrated that . Eroslioni is only one of themcastal hazards Ein Hawaii; high water mnark was to be determined by references to tsunami iniundationi, sublsleidenceandflo)od.inigare amiong the tides arid that inean hirgh water . .. was the accepted other problems addressed iii the( statues Coastal Zone critrio. 'SS he edeal curtals sttedtha ''tIense Mlanagement P1rogram.7'I There have been ajpproxi- of mean high water, or the [limtu orlseaweedl line as its triately -10 tsurtauas over lthe Past I151 Nears, with espe- substatitial equivalent, to locate high water mnark oil cially severe loss of life atid propery damnage in 19-16 the ground was also in conformance with common anid 1960,Th law, adopted . . . ats the lawt% of Hawaii.''66 t'ltiinately, however, a lack of evidence during thle trial of tile HAWAII'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE S~otoitnra case-itnd anl act of nature-forced the fed- eral court to accept thle dt'bris line rather than the not Soon after becoming anr American territory, Hawaii line as the post-iiccretton botiidary of thle land in adopted the public trust dloctrinie, thle contC ept that r lie diSpUte.67 public has the right to use tidal waters for certain purposes.76 fIn 1899 in King V. O)ahu Raillway '-Land B. LegalI Effect of Physical Changes in the Co.,7-, the H-awaii Suiprerne Court followed the reasonl- Location of the Shoreline inig of the ['.S. Supreme Court's lrandmarek 1892 IllinoiS Central decision,7" arid hield that ''[n ]hc lands under the IriI 18849 [lie Hawaii Supremnle Court hield that addi- nayvigable waters in anrd a round the( terr ito ry of thle biotlS to littoral Iarild foiine~d bV gradUal, inpreltfl awvaiian (;overnmnent'- are impr ressedl with a i rust for accretion beogto [iupadonr1 Bt 88 vastile public uises of t mirnnerce, niavigatilon aridc fish inig.7" later, in 1977, the (ourt ruled that the state, rather than The Hawaii Snuprerie Court applied thle pbit . hIitrust private lititoral owners, should benlefit fromn extensions doctrine in 1905 to enjoin (construction of af seawal I ott III [Ile shore cauIsed by su~ddenI lava flows.69 Waikiki Beach's tidelarnds.""'I he court starued: 'Walls When a 1953 volcanic eruption overflowed the Islatid arid buildings extending seawvard beyond high water Of FHawaii's shorel ine, approximately 7.9 acres (if new mark block thle right of way ariid furrni ish ) riomorieisa- land were added to a privately hfIed upland parcel. 'Flie tory advantages to thle public for putrpose's of tiaviga- court found that tihe state, ripori admission to tile tion or fisheries. ''Ot Unrion in 1959, had COltaitied title to the lava exierision. Despite these early decisions, however, there have It reasoned that, when ceding landfs tO [fie I nited States been difficulties in reconciling ptublic rights assured 1 2 SHORE AND BEACH ut IdId cIIIIv publIcI I it uSi doc TiI trc wv I .iti Ir iac fis IIIIIg tIhreS slcct. 'I'cc I it waii Coaxs I Zlone MatIcagc'ment Pro- f ighits IIhait I1.fad atistli tnditi al( icnt HIwaiia I( i (Stc tit giant calls fot '(p]ioviding and maniaginig adequate iticd usage. I)ub1)i1 a(Ccss, tonsisivill with cionsci va i on of natural Ini 18-10 King Kanicc'liaucc'a Ill lotmiallv giantitd the( Icsoucit s. ico aricc ahnig sioic'livc's %with reteational konohikihi ((iviseci s, land agenlls of laticlords of the c le'9 ahlmymraa, cit baisic laudt dix-Ision)i (etauti priivate i ghts.11-' Lc'gislamckI the state( has aeilic'ipcdlto pteservc 'hil koicohikcs c ould decsigitate oic' spe~c ls of fish bc'ac I a~ccess. 11wl( IDepartiteic of ILand anid Natural withi a ci tamatea forterl c IcIsv'seoaer Resocttcs, whitihi aditlinisters state-mwned lands,, ]is lIvelycI, Iptut a tabo on all fit IIISIIictg INw IillIhin it I ea for al itIc(It I IIcdI( to la out andI teserve vc t iti Il puIII) aI e(i(( ss pu'' l(dof time cand weceivecolc-th1d of all fish caught b ctwecc] Ifig Ifays INaudI I beac If 's wheIcnvc'r SlIforeb.I Tie %--'ithi the fishinge .1.1\sf lc Ilwi egsaue ip't is scilc, leased or developed lIn thc statc'i1 hI aplto'c'd llthse konolhik? rights III 1859.11 addlltioll, a statute. cteated a scolceline Sethunk arcea.", Congre ss 'in rlice 190011 awvaii ()igatcic Act& repealed tlic'telm ciuc ?uiagisig lateral pitilhilc cc ss along 1w all laws c ouceritcng cxelusix-c privalte fishitig rights Shici. e-Xcept lot p c'exist itg veusted I iglcts. I 'lcceI tlcc act Ialny I lit Ivai i S aI)Iclit clct ( oll Sits l)I)ateI utly Icase. fict vI()IbeerIt IlaIrica IctII to icese Iright Is wals Irequ11ifed to Iegi sell1 his sqcariauc'l' conifrotnted waith beci(I it ccess issues. Butl, as lairnIl wNiti Itw II IAo veat S: tie erickI or wa s tillet t(c con - pic'sicusly menitioned, [lit Slawes Suprenme Court, iln deticit and purchlase thec fishceries ththa ee rei- Ii-Solomm ia case, declared that "Jp iltIi icpollicy tered and adj udiealted.11, favors exterduingtoubiusacdonrhpstu h IDue to 11nan1I ownervs' fai lulte to register thecir kollo- of H awaii's shoreline as is reasoriabk possible."99 hiki fishet (.I(. wI.thiii the tw1"o-year deadline, thcOrganic Sonic Haiwaiianl legal writeles, alarmned about lilt, Act Ioperiedl incit than halIf these fisheries to lthe pub- pacc' of development along lthe sicore, hlaxve urged uti Ii- I i( ."- -owe-veri Iin two decisions ]in I190.1 and 1906, the( Zilltion of\vai~ouIs theoriesf ofalaw to cStalI)iish anid prlr U.S.. Scp cInteri C.ourt Iup~held tilce validity oif pleexist ing publ ic a~ctSS."ti", Poinmiting toIhcch Oregoln Su prelie pi ivaltc fishitin lighic s St tessirig thca t Ilaw~a i lr ua Cou]ir I's reluatwe oti a modcified for Il of tihc' cornmon - and tlaw had tec cogniiecd theicl as privsalec prcopert y."l law' doctrine. of c uslcirn to ope tilca IState's b~eachies to) '1'cesc' dcc isicotis lcversecl a I lawani Su~premei Court the Ic. 1)11 Ii 101c these writers assert t hat piuhblic access Icoldi ngs' that tire Trustees oif t lie Estate cof Bernice sh oulId hevjudicially proteccted under ar tricin t Hawaiianl Pauahli Bishop. ithe largest private landowner in the Custom and usal.ge. (By case law., such I usag eftnust pre- Islands, hald ac(quired nco vested fishings rigicts,. dtNo. 25, 18929, whentecmo aca oc Moicre taica thee decades later, lt(re Bi shop Estate Iriona liv adopted in Hawaii."10) It is c-lai med thart t het at tempted to quiet its rtitle to ancotheri Iisherv.91 Ini 1 940) CUStomary right of beach access was a puLb] iC right iti 11cc/cop v. Alahl ko. the( Hawaii Suptelict ICourt subt- which thie llHawvaiian] king as sovereign could not ordi nated ithe kwicohik i fi shIng rights to the( public c(1tivey. c 0:1 trust anld held that theC BiShop1 Estate'S fai lurc-' to estab- iA 1979 1U.S. Supreme Court case Involv'ed thre ques- I ish its cliai Ic) vetsted rights tinder the( Organic Art h otc cof pu 1)1ic access Io Kuapa Pond, a shallow tidal constitcuted it w.aiver oif anv rigirt tci ccrnpensa tion.11 lagcoon on the Island of 0ah scisparated fromt Matlna- Tlw 1)111ic trustdcoctin .t-ieas ccitini uitrgxvialji i t~,inI Iua Bay anid the' Pacific Ocean bv aI barrier beach. Ini Hawtiaii. It wa-is relied onl by t icc state Suptreme Court itt cot~ci'eing the fishpond intcc a marina for private the pivcvicctsly discussed 197.3 Solionurra boundary dec(i- recreatiotnal boats, as part of a stiidi vision, a private sdii� Anid in af 1977 case, also menltiolned above, the( dcveloper diedgecl anl 8-foot-deep chianucI from the cmurt Iheld Ithat tiew land f ormnecd hy ]Isav flow's exteuic- pcotcd to t hic' ha . lIn Kaiscr Artna v. I 'cc ifed .Slatesc,"" thre ing the ccoratigi nel seaward is held i ritrust by the( state for C(ourt tICjCtcd the Federal CGovc'rtimctit 's at tempt to) thre pieople'. arid rc(ognzc iecl iteraImcin ats it valid public requci IreIIce devclocper to) a Ilow freeipibl ic a(ccess Io) the IIrlist csein niarii A 1978 acdd ition tocilthic I hawaii Cciistit ution also Thel( Fe-detal Gocvernmen t argued Ithat thle dredged reflected an a ppl a t iolr of tilc' pcil ic-~liust dcictrin'c) t~o pcd had becomec a navigable wateri of ithe u ni ted pubJIlicl J'OWtid coastall lands and weaters: Slate's, wals stibject tc the( federal niavigat ional servi- ".I.,ot i'bf c~to rdfrct'g'eaits tuc"'lio atid thus must be open Icr [hc lpciilic: . A div'idecI thec State ilrcl it', pil iti ~ill sibd~(ivisiolis shall c cdrserve Supremec Ccuirt, noctintg that under I hawa iian law andrlotrtciru H awaii's talciale hearin% aikd all iiatccral Kuitpa Pond wvas priv'ate pr-opelty,116 held that tile lesircrccs. i Iccldiring lJrrcd, wa ltcr, ;iii, mnilrerals and govern men t coul1d nor 1edquire pubelic access to ithe un'ii(r so)c lts. arid shlaI loiiulloicc tIc *dc'selc prmcci i ccl diled drcgec p onld wit hic ct Inmcvok ing its em inneciat domain utit lizalIicric of these. Itescrcrrc s irc af Ilirrairre ccuiisstcnl power arid paying just comipensation.c07 withlcwl Irir crcs'valticou andicl cc [ 1ccim thi ofc cit th self- ScIft ic ic.lc N of1 llce Slale. PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS "'All picullic faicatra lescrulcc's arc hId llcI itt bm [rrlivt-rc 'Stawc [or IIIc' lwirc'l oft fci rpIe hpticl." There is it pauncrt y of law. o~il t hc' rigli s of pri ~ate PUBLIC ACCESS RI(;HTS litetoal ciwnerclS ilti Hawvaii.1i0 It iltlrc lava flow case, discussed( aboive, thec starc- But a usc. titi up landls adjoinintg thIicte-qucat ters of the Supreme C:ourtI recognized thaft th plol)1cieetion of the islaticls sarcllI bc'at Ilces a]rc i ti privatc' ownic'srillp"', pu111- lit total owNner, s( (ccss Io tw Ncawali is a tt 1aionalec fori thc lI ica Iitci a(cces IS is alma Wtc oif c ciriti rrc i g ccrccc'rn t1o the tistial Itu Ic'( of ac( c eicitio, butt t lit-' cotrt dcid si('c suc access State'. oc Cati swimic iii's, scirfc'us and otic It's seeckinrg tci use, whdcer lava had( cx tended t Ice siccitc'linc. Cit icg Califor- OCTOBER 1983 13 nia cases, the (ourt sai(1 that "...the preservatioli ol f .1ll'wtr:( tllli iail itai it uhmil,'' 1(2) ot-tao [private J littoral ac t'ss is Riot sa ro~saiCt and [litist thelina Ienergy miiv'I sioli (( ) lF'(:)ll' iiit (3) IIkb- solnetitnes defer to other inl Lctsts anti (tlnsidera- artgi nd('u'. 'ft'itthI ti IL(i'liit1- Lions.'' 09 vllitltitg ] itlis ltgislaiivt propo)s'lls IttJ(' put Ilit'II( A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fatng IIrl[ II en~i SIg ttIi taoe dic()pe.1t'I itf)'t[g laIii. mnt itliIIg f Nit .IH tail lIttl il it~ll nize the right (if private upland owners ito erec t and INwalerI()u III Oh tIl aid I),l the( (.t tniI si IIIIi t117 maintain wharves, landings andt piers seawvard of the I [awva ii's Co StnlstitioI i ci tIlII) iwvt' s IlII Itt It.( Intt IIa - hiigh -water mark, providing such Strut Lures did not age anld (1)o11 rod the Ilarlne. sca bed antd oit] herest t i es interfere with navigation."11 Present statutory law 1o alted Wi thinl (itSI hlOtLIdarkie'S. ' 1xAiSiing sIlitl- requires that state leases for piers oi "public landls, tory law atl iorii/cs the Nepaitnerti cit oI ttd ;irid Namiii- including submerged lands,'' jrovide that tile publ)lc( ra I Resoiintes to lease sI ate-o w neti ide ad ulsbtiticgt'td can use such facilities.111 land1(s, but only~ forl (Certiin Uses aild SLiIIjt'('l to Natioiis USIrtit)101(l.' As.\ previoutsly nitiedi, Iitasc., of[ piiblit LEASING AND REGULATION ladIIdtiILIli h i ai .itF',lt IS ii hIMMit rigllis,() OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS waly and 2ic(('SS ito lbea( es. 21) A. Leasing B. Regulatory Functions Hawaii's ecoastal toune is siillett to t'xlt'lSIN(' itgtl I- Unlike California, Louisiana antidTexas, the State of R ioni b IState and ttnlnty agent( its. Hawaii has no known tilI, gas orotther hydrocarbons in Fo r exallple. tist's with in et oliserva li tiol tiiS lit IS, its tide and subluierged lands. 112 Consequently, the state establisheti tinder tIIIt pionelter iig State Lantd I 'st I 'iaw has focused onf the potential of developing other tOf 1 961, 21 are regI.lated by~ thle DeCpar Itintrt 0i Iantl ald resources in and beneath the ocean surrotinding its Nat oral Resource S. COTISt'rVatiiol diSI rici ell. lia ('1M v ditc islands. In this ctonnec tion, Ocean Leasinigfor Hawvaii, tide and stiberutgedthiniis and beach areas landtlwai dtilt an extensive report prepared for the state's Depar tmlent the inaxuiIum1n1 line Of wave! attitiullC (OlisrVal itl totiS- of Planning and Economic Development and Depart- tr'iCt use pt-I'ilts Mutst lbe tOb)aitleti bN '' aJ,1Ily0tilt pitp- ment of Land and Natural Resources, was issued in osinig to ilse . .. [distric t Ilands OR waters lt)Ii t Wllit'l t'ial 1981.113 gain.''L2 The report examines the legal and policy issues (on- Ini 1970 the Shorel inet Seiba(tk Law'-23 ''t'stablisltild a cerning state leases for three potential uses of Hawaiian restrictive zone '10 feet [laiidward][ Lorin tie ppet wash ~* /IT 7"7-~~~~~~~~i PI /7 Fig. 2. The Kalapana Black Sand Beach, on the Island of Hawaii, was formed when an ancient lava flow was attacked by the ocean. Shoreline property in the area was the subject of lengthy litigation in state and federal courts over the location of the boun- dary between uplands and tidelands. (Hawaii Visitors Bureau photo.) 1 4 SHORE AND BEACH oft ith waves (20 feet for certaini sma II parcelIs) in which 12. Ili I 839 tw Ilictlataiori of Rights, also ta~lld thr tIawaiiati COns Sut Ion 6 1 and othe~r opera (iOns art' gener~all pr-ohi - Magnta Cat Ia, was prolittilgated. Onte pitiiiisioti plvlltdtiirltdn ki hg andl (I li its It (lii d iiispssessinhg peojiii Oftit-int proper t bi ted except b\ it special appioval-variance Pro- wifliouri (airsi-. 'Ihi- Dut- 1;tratioii of Rig-f% %its wasit(o irpolalt-d in cedtitt.1-4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the liust (oosTIS1I1iioti Of law'aji Il IMItt. Whitb Chaclig(-d Ito- t nd r ii - Hawii Shrel i1W Pr)teclion At of 975,25iilni 'if gi cis-ltin n vi ioto an absi oltic Ill1onalIiN loa (oLiii ilt t- which established spuecil nmanagemnent areas (SNIAs) iii0itAI iltiC. (A)IIttI)VIit .50/ut). 11010 Ill. 26 I laslinigs L. .1. at 831- along the coast, Ul~ilty per~ts ar(- reqinred br certain83- :imooii/,n noti- -1.3telw. L. Ri-s.at I 11-112. Inl 1811 itoc knitg "ag-at sounght to foicstill I mitlli withIi( do iciigni "des-elcipinnts' which xceerl $65,00 or whichwould iitiiil~lm t I), b pilo( Iuniiiig it plani of iitt nitiioiiatiii alloiwing signifiicantly afiect the shorcllne.iI~ tlu- Ilatntds, g-icsllmis 1( thu-i tut fi i' hl-it-at leatiss with 1wi The SMA permit procedure is am integral part of lthe oIigit.ly..spanoe(,6Ct . Ri-v. ait 852 (loomtiot- H-awai i Coastal Zonct Managemenet fi Pogram, devel - iiiiI. oped under the state'sUINM Program Act of 1977,12-land I 13, Ccoiimtoiii ofpm. noiii- 10. 26 HI ating-s1 I. . ai 832; (Onntin~t-1. S141)ra, nowc ', S I Ilaw. L. Re-s. ;t 112 ti. 67. app iowed Iw the F-ederal1 Government in Sepuember I-1~IA'N mimi f bile I0. 63 Cii. tL. RiCs. al 853 (fo0itiote (nilltijild 1978. The Department of Planning and( Economic 15. Id. al 8-5] (Iinioioiu. tuilicitt). Development is tile lead ageticy in administering the I 6. le.a853. p)rogtmi,'-, but miany othier State and county, agencies 1 ., ogd.iil in. Ni heawai i nr I muctt-t of (.0-a Alaa-i- loo n d, vsti. have roles in its impletnentation. ~ ~ ~ ~ nolt ID, 261 laslin gs L. Ihal 832-833. -utso(liiitiIA0/t, tiot( 4, 3 lawes. L. Rev. atIl 11-1 121. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IS. tAWV , SrUPt. Dole tO, 63 Cal. L. Rev. ai 857. 19. Id. at 862. The authoi I's grateful to Richard Poirier, Project 20. Id. at 858 it. 6-i 21. Si-i Hawaii ()rgaoi( A( i. 31 Suit. 1-Il1. B(,( aitsu, of its stains as a Manager., CZIN Pirogram, Department of Planning and tItihitorN bol. (-ii t intiig ithtUnon ml, Ibis dii iIllus differs twint Economic Development, Sta Ce of Hawaii, foi provid- TI'xas, ,wrIt ti had tb-en anr indi-pt diidni tuic)I)6 inirnevdiatci-t ing Some of the sourc(- material cited in thils article. tiiti ii siari-iii )d. 22. II ( NIPI, supTa, flo( I. a i 7. 53-6-I; ti-liiphoc ii on versatIion. sii/rer, nt~le 3. 23. 1977 H~aw. Suss. Laws iii. 188; coidified ait Haw. Ri-s Stat. cit. 205A (Il'. 1) (Suppi. 1982). 71-ii- SNAs wivit po-t-xisling ait-as REFERENCES stihjuI- lo tIooi- ituwilsist- re-gulationl thiat Iiat tbii-i flilitn-aled oil Malls I li-it' I the i (ttun lit's I)LTtSIlani to tito I Ia wa ii Stior-l inti- IState, of Ila-wai Constal Zone Alatiagremen Prog-ram and Final P'toii-iiont Alt rof 1975. todifit-d at H-aw. Res - Siat. cli. 205A (Pi. 'rroo rown-nial hopaet S ta irnien f 3 (19781 hc-i-iina ftitcitried as 11)1 (Sopp It982).Thle Hawaii CZINI A(t eq it-cr d d ic ti ulIties it) lWYMNIP1. 1Fht- pioigram %io i- pre-paredc untlti tit(- Co~astal Zoneit arniititdio-S1NI Asbv17 oiiit tt 0s i tl)]t iss- iitlii Ma nageimen t Aw i of 1972. as amt-ndi-d. 16 .S.C:. 1451 el seq. thiat alli and citeritua dt-ta ilcd in i lli- s tai-s ioa stat programi 2. WY(~MP.oitpra. tioi 1, at 3. CM , ottnoeIai-7 awR-.Sa. 20-X23(pp 3. Id. at 118. I'mrivat partis owtt 60.1 pt-ricntof it itt- coastal 1982). up]a rds tlit 1-di-a Go-eri n-t t 1.4pin-n - ti I ii st ti a id 2-i-16 It U.S.(C. � 145] ri-.o-q - t otiitits 28.5 pitit.T-elotettsrai ititi Juth 22, 1983. 25. HUMPI 1 sipla, noite I. at 53. is-lit IiRo dney- F-utakLoshi fiw.1 Isai i C/NI Program. -tepa rt tntotfi 26. 'It is la ssifIita iiott is tonsi sii-nt wivih tht- t i-altotinvt of othict fiii n titl Ec onomnic Detv-e-lopmentit, Stalit of H awia ii. -staict (S -ital st oti-Li trens itl t ill,, stories. [Hosw-s-- -w "t-hi ghit-s 4. 1 l(:ZMP, sipra.note 1,at 5;GCcmnui-t -IlauwaW.s Ce'dedILanid~s,3 wash of titii waits," tattot than tlt- litit- cof meani high watt-r Clawe. L., R(-%-. l0t. lItI n. 62 (1981). basci-i oti tidal data, is usied iii this at ticit as titt, dt-miatation 5. -] omtism ha s Itet1-a Hsawaii's tmaini indsijtr~ sinl(v 197(1. HUC/MP. 1) bwiu-til tip]ands andtIridi-tand sbetaus)-of Hawsai iani state toast- .supra, notite I at 5. alI hotindat~ l ast- lass- See- "Di-trm itia iion tof Tidal Boo tda- 6. Ini re A.s/iford. 50 Mlaws. SI-I, 440) P. 2it 76 (1968). For a discussion rit~s-0/lntd. cit Iliis a titi subtseq uetn booodary Cast-s. st-i "1i-ic-rm ilnat jot of 27. By- law sf-i-u-all~ owns-tedo mtna naged-i lat ds ati-ext 1 dtd (toni tlit- TFidal Btouidari its.' in ia. toastal tIncnt. I16 U..5G.� 1453(a). lIii t iss-tit oitt)- hloist-et. r at 7. Set- geieralty Stiat-ocu Hawaii, Ofean D-rasing for /-Iawaii (1981)r; dII- DI.-partnwtit oit DetetIse., rIteNat jorat Park St-ti-itt-atidotittie K~~~~~~~~~~~~i- iiSa-adFeealRqua n )7'EC P/anl ts in H awaii. a-itt-ta Iagenti-tcis hlas-- tiii - to ria nN pt o i-s of i oastal u iplan ds, 2 Sotlar L. Rpir. 191 (1980). rincludinrg a pprixi ma ti-I; 10..5 mile-s III tilt 47 linhear mnile-s of 8. InI T- Ashford, sup/ra, 50 1 laws. 314, 315. 440 P. 2tt 76, 77. uiilanits iiwti-d hy givis-mtitii-ial itititic., adjoinintg satid) 9. 1892 Hawt. St-ss. issli57 5:ni-cittetatHaw. Ri-i. Stat. bt-;tcit-s. 1W(ZMPI1.vupria, noti- 1, at I118. II -1 This suiruti- still re-cognize-s ito( signiiticanice- of pre---1892 28. ("it),- Ccowitv (1 f Ilo~ijoh/ij s-. Ifeuioen. 57 (Liii-. 195, I 97-2(1-1, Classa iiani usage-:-hFi-t-comtnon lass- FutEglanul -as asceriai ntt 55~2 11. 2d1 13801, 1384-1I388 (1ti7). litt- Ci t andi CG itititolu Holmn- Ii; En rglishi andi Ati-tvic-at diecisionts, is dc~ti art-c to hi- thi- cotm- lulii, whtieli was c-ondt-tning fthe otfshtioi islatit tfot park put. mroo laws ot tlit- Stulu of Hawsaii - eXep/) ast cuthietiise .. . posts-toitit-tded thati a mtsolutiocn b) ilit- Privy Cooinil. advisers elslabb.(s led bv Hawaiian rt i sage - , (Eniphatsi s addedit.) ito II it kintg pt ~evelttd prisati- ciwtiesti p tin itt- are-a I rota ticl- hO. A di-a i li-td di s u ss iotn out iish(ist otica Ihackgi ountd is, cit tou rs- hi g s ittut itOtt to a miarintel-gii tas-ti b ur bi-yotl it] ii 01 Of t ~i ut rIis att(icI-. For tunnir hitnilorcmla tion air(t said t hvi~tle thmiso]iiiuti tdi d n ut ha ii- htfit cit o - i lassatid tta t thi- rit a iutiston i tnr isr- -in--s -s--OenLea sing fOrHaii'a i, powsems ofd ivi kintg cmcepi fcor st-If-imipo sted li iiitat ituts, ssere- supra. note 7; Gontnumn sutpra, nr(tt- 4, 3 H-aw. L. Rev. 101; btoadt iriougli to pemi cons-es-ants of sottIi offshiot islands,. Liv%., Nalw Hi-Iawaiian Land Rights, 63 Cal. L. Revi. 8-18 (1975); 29. Seei "Liasiig- atid Regulationt ot Coastal Zoni- Lands and Commeilitnt, H Iawaiian Beau/i Access: A Grnstotnar)- Right, 26 Walt-ts-htifra. Hastitigs L.. J. 823 (1975); -Yowt &- Yuenti Pub/ic Access to 30l. fl(CZNI P. stupra, ncite 1, at 118. Set- alsoi Conmint-n, .0ipra, ncire Bea/h-s in Ilaea ii:"A SorinlNecessiti," 10 Haws. B. J. 5(1973). 10. 26 lastings L. J. at 825: Towno & Vuenr, mO/ira, Iltui- 10, 10 II - Coriitniiieiisupra, note 10, 261 lastitigs L. J.at 83(8.831 - "Wihiit flaws. B. J. al 5. For a discussioti ot this It-gal bounrdary, si-i nirst a/uprtp aas wsitc a nub e t ofhtu subd is-isi ons cal li-i Hi/s that - ~-iri of t o -u idal Boundaries-inifta - existed ttor tht- tons-nient e (i ut, rhi- et atc is-i-ri admtinistredii 31. I/ro'ri Stemes 14 Haw. 3993, 4011 (1902). IS I laws. 91 (1906), b~a kcinoliki- (ain agecnt of tIle- chil~; later usi- to refer- lo rtet( litfd, 212 U.5. 2018, 212 (1909); Terr. v. Litirtoka/ami, H- Hlaws. 88 cthief-s toi latitlidt ts).4T1ti- i/is..-.-. hati riosi-pararti-exisii-twt [trcti (19012). titi- alt upizaa - antd ill( k nnohik i Ii char gi- (if allt i i hadi to pati 32. H awsai i Admsit oniStl Act, 73 Stat - 4, � .5. nibi liti- to llii uHl ofut t hi- a/i p ua." Me -Ibd Si-i a kit ot~icirii-i t 33. Ftor a tbrief disctuss ion of] tIlleq tiaUJI-f(WI d (4 ti ili ittit, seei .5/iOTe .S11It)T. tioti- -I, 3 I law. L. Revi. alt 10- IIl, and lietahI Vol. 48, Noi. 4, Ot tiobti 1980), II) IS- 16i. OCTOBER 1983 Is 3 1. I7 Sim. 29. 4(odiiv ild 4 1:1 U .S.(. I 3 I :111 Ne~ el. I . Id. it1 3:01-sI1 Il II M '. 2d ill Mu-Ti it itiumololo. , dixsm-iliog). 35. - ( ea it I .-'l1 i.t1 for W I e aI 40 14, ~ 44/) ra, I tote(7. dl V'-39: Keoi,1 %11 iore, 52. Id. t ~I 2l 1 ,I10 1'. 2(1 I4 I811 (,dla I IlIloIlo.4) J., il''lI I 11(I IIIg) We- II I hd54',N 11014. 7. 3 Solit L. Rp~r. itl 530-536. ilk III it-illl). 36. 1I aw. (ijixi. mto. Xi. � 6 (Supp.~ 1982) (u'lp1(lahis I()() hit 53. .5I1 laiw. 176. 517 P. 2d 7 1473), u'l1. de ti',1 Ill) I ',S. 872( 197 I). St it II II)I tidvfilitit II(iflil d!Isl 'It Is, %%I ilhi IlIIl( - SIICilt it sit .Il~I Ii- itIi I5.1. Unlike Ashtford, whi( II ()i( A11(111(1 Lind14 ion11 liot 'dtog i 198(10i opi ideth' dl i tidixo i s Ilit lode ''do( hilw('Igio ttdlv'1 ... wgilt' 1(.1 I 10 IICtL nd ibI .1 1 (01 1 IbIulI)l v t II INx i Iox gs sit-I,(xl 'I. 3 7. 1 idw. (:,ulx. .01. XV. � I IStilpp. 1982) (ellli4Lx I)tis lk tid. I1962. eight ~ Ca s uItloic I IWe (:01tuniN o I 1xlaii, it IIItI iit,emni I'144'l 38. Of coil I'ampiog for lia-ou.ll st(e14, note1' 7. at V'-1 610 (foo It' diolhldill .1(lion. 11 4It'(I hit Sm (-o wh(, it lIt1(.(t'di lit Idoil (141111 (11141 ed). lt-gist I it lotI app)l iif dI I l I'tiit~i IlC idtth II lati 14( .Lt ('(III 11( i(g II- 39. 3.52 F. 2d 73.5 (!)h I(Ar. 1965),e afj 'L U..I B.%/'. 10a Ild .hrbIoIIe'.~, III I. Wait'r Inalk altiig [litlit /1 ((II scaudt''I) ]lile. Id. dl 177-179. 517 235 F. Suppll. 73.5 (1). Ila W. 96 1). P. 2di 59-til. -10. i'lowt''t'r tilt' (:0111- of A\ppeaix polnit-d 144) that lilt.' Sut'e tf ['lie ILINtxaiiall %%(41 h100 144'Itfl Io dl\. 14 pC I II plaidltI i% ilig dill) biltlIg gtarllct lea.I~ to app-a dI I,'d dx 44m) 4.1i 4l4ri0. [L/(401d t o xtxI(llldillt' dJlgdLc. ' o ( osi. pra, 11o14lt .d 1)1 . lir/llne.1. Im . N. C-Ill., slupra, 352 F". 2d tl 71 7-. 55. Ccnoll v of flailt(l % . Solomulr44, st4/rll. si 1 Li%. al 182. 5 17 I'. 211 II. Kt'ith, .414prej. til~t' 7. 3 Solar L.. Rpui. dll 535-53ti. il 621 . lIi' h'is' was 1 11( psition~ l.(kull ill Ilw 4m m% 41l 14 Ib( Ilial~t. Terr. %. Kerr. 111 Ha%%i. :113 ) 1901): llallerad V.(. 7 fd.587 gt'lltralIN lbt [4(141i41 dl 114t', times'' o(1il ix~ji xiifrt's.u..t'Ib eiteX5td t4o gr.(nl Iiland Se'awadr it) lilt' 11tw-wdlt'r (lit'. l/row" V. titdta Wilil 1114) oIf the xegetlilioll lwlt, WitIh lit-S oI', t ih' h11';11 i Sprece/. he s, utra, I Il law .399, liii. 18 ilaitv. 91. ((ff41. 212 U.S. ilt'rlli,.. (lox, 4lifpral tl4,Ilt 11, 41 1111). 208: 'Terr. V. i-i iii ka lanz, m0prt, I I 1 1,4',. 88. lIt' cef i',4''ed04/ 1' 514)''.;%Ii 1101 ismvm u 111141)' 4', j l ,'1.vo1f 14. See Co, .Sho rel ine 'ro per!j B loundar)1(t i ~l'1 il 141(((1. Hawtai 1 441gelatiorl)4. 1(1 lvllt' dII ''1ill xU i t.4141 igt'(if land11 ',itu'4'd I ll t',ilxt' Coastal Zotit' Manlagem~ent) Programl, I(4( il. Supp. No. 21 (1980), fUrtherf gIMNIwII hxt' ;kditi ix i1iiiiit'ti liV xAIl -Wi4)41 IllII~latI itIl ill at 96-1 1 7. tother Wm',Circe tfu x le.ila) 98-9)9. -15. 50 Hatw. :I I 1. I110 P'. 2d 76 (1968). 5,7. (Coull-V (iffIltiwn' ', .Solomu1(r(4,.upra. 51 I Hw. dl 182. 517 P'. 2d 16. Id. at 315, 1IIIl P. 2d at 77. A-Iltougih it is arguiable that this dl 6)2 ifoomotw (inllilt'ted emphasis~xi addlted). titfinIitIi(Jn 'ta s dtI �4 411, l.4'.. tilllett'xai to It)ilt' dt'ciioi os 10101 ilt' 58. lid. at IS I - 182. 5 17 11. 2d ti 6 1 issue tie fo itf (fi) I li' ur) i. I( ilil, bee at~ ols' I441 .p plied ill other 59. Id. :41 182. 5 17 11. 2d t1 .4 Ii -1i2. ('axes its it'Jprt'xt'tinlg xuitt' lat%. 6. lit re, .SaItibltfig. 57!1 la w. 58:5, 59-I 1.562 1'. 2id 77,1, 777 ( 1977). 1iII 18. Id/. at 315-316 n. 2, 1 10 P1. 2d at 77-78 II. 2. ['he trial judge hati laiiut'd ill lilt priatvit owners'rI 1.51 I40 tie illlI d11( IC')' tii I'gisilia' perml iIitted lit' liai' It woI kapinat w4441444,itnse ltoxe 14) t')if',. ill tlrter l i o n 11 all ioligi p rine fellJ444't iev idt'1i4t o'(f lilt' hiighi-wtaiter maidrk. 14)1 pic'eret'lilt' I olrdoi ( pp11 d bi 111)ll ada4grt'ed i th tile priv',ate in iti l Vic-Id 1to (til''( 't'iltl aitd fit'iri', lrIt' l'lthe'itl it 41wnlt'r' oljc ijt' ion Olx14 tiit' k'l 4rn1a 41a wvi tness'',t'5lsti lllof' a bout U ppe'r rl'. lt'' 4uo tit( wI Wit' td io ilt' w t'',. ' 141 :il 588-591 .5)itP lit'e d 11 it-t) ii ts Hwiiall Itra4i tion). 445(4. .411(1an tisigt' of deli tttat - 2t1 al 77:1-775. Svc also L.ill b'ton V. StatIe. 6576 1'. 2t 1336, 13 H: ing m444k(( bound4ita ries. hI. :il 31 5-316 I. 110 P. 2d atl 77-78. ([law. 1982): Katzman zri:k ',. Citt (:r~ ui v (If loiflohtd/u 651; F. .19. 1(1.atiii : 1 11'.II . 2tat 77.[lt or 115rlct'lll eea t 2d 89. 92 (I litw. 19821. foir ctltltrlliliing l~t' uiJiland tidetladlt bounitdary ax set ford) ill 01 h~t t't I li' uotiiuto ( lt (4l~~r .' 1. 4 tfk-deral flora x.L 1.4.v i Vo .) 1 g e. 961'5 0(1935). Fi ra brief law', are- California 44! Y'''re. S141te 1.1414d/. Nol(4 ) . I 'Iiited sli IC'~ (Its415',ionl 44f Bo(r44v. xte.SioreandIBeaf It. Vol. 18. Nio. '1. Otaloler 1012 S.(:. 21:12 (junt' 18. 198,21, .411d fluite,'le H lan.'o i. 3 1980), ppJ. 17- 18. [It titfwill g tilt' Imigi wtValtr mlak ill tt'rm1 (If ii 1.S. 290 ( 1167). Fl'( Inlbret tdis( u~i on of~ 414 (Ii its s', xet 5/IorI' %V'gt'l utg0lII 0 debris title'.I It~iita S (41 Mrt e'xpandeitd landwa,'trd tile 4(4(4 Bear/i, %it[ 5I. Si No. 2. Xpul- I 1M8. I II). 16I-1I8. iitl (If lit' sltae's tidelandlis ownetltrship alon1g salndy be'aches Iil 62. H awaii's, [tilt'rlocdia.41 ( Altf[ (If AX~pcpis mentl~iotlet [lit',11114 t't- (oltipalrisonl l44jlilsutlit miiil haiI iialet'dt p(41 dt'( ht'B Rlrax rult'. lli lailnl'4 about44 tilt- xlte'N i1lfll dltl idt'l.ot bounlda4',il % li liigmiion .1 IlliJtord1 110- (itairt Ilotvd tll.t l~t'hedge (if xt'gutationi or debris title. aboutt a It'al etaxdte ci4t",s agit''11tlivi: '''Ilit'( hin ge Wit [hi 1414 iionl on4 tht' lR'ai-h illotII t'i Ill lilt' 4 se, 14 ifatedh o11 114t' Islatid of o If the wa~iterfronllt~i wa lilill.' i)' Hainglxii", '401 -TI C1111. (114( ill Mo1)4okali, wits a41ppilximIlawlyt 011:0fe alt,:r I h iKC jid icial de ttisonIls. F1i quest~ 4.1ion is sill pv1( tld~illg lit ' ev~raI ft'tl' 1110 P. 2ti al 77. leitirmli1114.'' Sha41ffer v. Ea)rl Thai ki'r C:4.. 1.1d1., gli-l 1. 2t 983. Thle 4 4141rt . xitIi Ig 111.4 p~rope lrty rigills aire, diterlml inIet by tile 987 ( 1-:fw. .App. 1982). .4''II ' ldl 'w iltl lilumCwhnthe I igll s irt' tr'I tt'ti d,, Sid Ilat wh Wit'f hie 63. .Solop 14ra1 V'. (:1414141 (f 114:4ali. Ill F'. Sti pp. 17:1. 177. 182. 18 Iloy,4ljIitll p Wt'lt'c ihs'14tid ill 1816)h1 Hawiit 11It 411154x4rtigll hadn 11( If. Ilaws. 1978,. The it' ollilias obilmill'd . judgiigt'44 ill dliei :I1.5. :I1 7. 1 111 1'. 2(1 ai `77-78. (9111 (:ir. 19821). 5 0. lId. atI :511S. I1I0 P. 2t 1 .41 7 8- 79 J (N Lo 11114). W. ti 4 I51 I Iti I Ig).-I Si k sid 6 1. [f60 F". Supp. ill 18'2- 18:1. 11414 oIf lilt' staat.idi hom411idar4 i1 e','try patiel t' 411 4141gis~lerctd Su~preme (:11(41'' illpjlit it a((t-la e o Wht'1141 '~ v1v1 4 lt't ll, . .ill 1.1 jlriatae kind4 [i~e., 1444141 whose tt hId [lo p411141;1''lcv l',lV Ibtt' 1956(asel I .41.41i14h14ei i l'Idctd tII444 ~lc:4 044 r4.gislet'td under1 ihliat' 14to(ry landit t( il t Filo(Iitt'tilgs. stith ii45 i014 .. .re'ferritng 1to 'Itltial higil water witr41k ii', .411 mi4tv1'rxhii 1114' loperll'1 i1'4htt 4 lhfrIi li Int'ilIdoi ll'tte41 jtlrisdictiollal lillit aholg lith' shour'. Ilie' I laissaii I.tgil~ia- dlot 44111111 dties I false' 1144. %t'.wart([ 14 44141.ln 4 i~t' bilg 'aihing (fiet [ tirle itself re'(oglniiedt .isearly as 1928, n .1(1 oI4114144('d it) r4'4lglkil' Seai ,illte lso414. 411t' deim't'lmalitionl (if thle seaward booiltdar" oIf a s' late as 196-1. tia i nti a 11( hi 4g11 walt'r- 1414k ', his tilt-lnvol Lthi isioll t', ry part: 'I oIf piN',.4te iii 41 nI b ill Ili) by at ( LIel 144 to rt-gis'lt'1td between privad e andt publ hic 1)14pJerIy al ol g Waikiki hah ll.411(1 tiilt! lex'awatii 11bo414inLt' (if irv'ry plii 1 tIit reg istt'red liii iti Ibid. (foolnt iie',(1( ontled.'i Iet' 11',t'r af14(1 ti (4,i41." lei. at 3 18. I111 P. 2)1a.4 793 (Marmi4l14o(. J., . $16. Id. at 178-179. '[he federal It orir a4'ssertedi: ' fit' I laWa ii So I)IC4.144. dlissetl](t i g). COtirt'S up0ilol in !xolomfur(1 doll'' 114t ilidit ale all', legal basis 1 6 SHORE AND BEACH lot flit- ltt-sutmiptiont thua fll-i utpplI teat hit-' (if tlli- Washt ofI lit- K INas i staltititit law SItill p111-iv is tlit-si- pi~ttsat koitrt/tk, wa5't5 ovtr lhit- ((ist- of a ye-ar lies [ito I alotig lthi- line- miarkirig fishing Itights. iI aw. RI-%. Statl. � 188-4 pmo ds "Tht- lashing tin(- i-dgt- (il vetgrtaI tnt Igrow IIhI wnn S tchI aI Ill( o(ut, i If lanial gtiiittds hot]] tit t- tI-ut atd whitri tli-te happien lo be Ito reefs. houril .it-i i~s lilte mita:kitg flth wsash of the( waves * .. Id. at 481). ]Ii te Ilhu distant co ii(il- gi-tiglalthtal 111f- seitward lo thu bevach 67 . lit auis th Ihc t taif (Scawe-d) i itti ot iginally hlli beent usedi tO atlow5~t 11k hliilw t ifs~i~lteltsi rp duciilurntn ilit scawiwad itutiutilty of diii lanid in tlit- priort]i ati ul oll th koftliiwts ~tts ai etrg ait.bln IIIt II Iltii vit Ii Itg . it WasIII IlcdclIditl I 011 t It m)it inoOI thIaft It II(- I ill %iii III(.; Iiitn- tIIII. sscsstiitf ol IwN Iith II I~ ifati- fsitIt Iis IItc. tItI Ilia1 jttdgi Ill flticttitdittttitttot at nitl "slonld lust%( Ustd tin- kottolliki shall not1 hit 11ol.It-std. ut-mpt Io Ill( c~oNiv of ilw satllt- itittittd of us~lablislhtng" liio It itindar) alte- titi- ttttsioiti l-st-rvariontt and prtolitltloats lviaf-uite fii ithis claictitr set loit( o((tt itttd. Mt. at -183. hughl." m-il~lstt Id. � I 88-5-15. It rttitii AIN-. ittwi it ii tiltit. oft titi I Taisaii Suptreme. CoIarr's lIn addltltioltt it ki~jto/ilki rigitts. Uct tait tttlattts,% fisiing tigltts 1973 solopttiray dv( isiott atid thuc 1978 tedi-tal Iulting, an tailt- aol it-( ttgtil-d Imn te Hawaii (misltittliittt attil statutes. Hlass- quat~kc t iiusc l iti- land lii questitli toSinik rtailIN 2 ftet. Id. at 477 OYTstf. alet. XII, k 7 (Stipt. 1982): H-aiw. RIa-%. Stat. � 188-5. Sv-c II. 13, O-atltt ra ug t ie-itttiidtia at a o It-alt Ift2titti fori- l-tjatii. siqimt, itot 7, atl \'-29- 135. tlut-tt-11iilt-ud "wium. thc rn li nel ]if)( th ofill- Ical high tiu (l rvIi ]i 92. 1ttnt t i-i~i .t~)itl o 1 a.I76. 18.3-18-i, 517 at ItIJlI) W&S idC aftet theitosit, atit int light of the SibtAL~setirn l'. 2dl 57, 63, ic! coe.-19 U.S. 872. Fortif discuissiotn of this stibsiclent.o Itc ilti- lau [iii It-tdt-al t u(tt ISatid "it woutild IIIt astC atid af telatd sub)St-tJUtt-t lAwS~itu itt kh-Ndi-ralu til SI'(- ullllttltOti t Iattttt ii d-bishoeasfondhv in tia ilil thi UpJlanld Tide-latit Ritiiaiun tdim ndt ettttttiit(iTdl It, flit- litopli st-;wattl totindaiv of Itill- landJ atl fiti tunt it was Botititlaies," supra. Iotidcttitti-l." lid. atl -183. St-u also hit re Santbornt, 5tuplit 57 [lawe. 585, 593-591, 562 P'. 2td 68. it Iistiael s . Gay. .supra. 7 flaui 587. 771, 776, saiting thatr "Iltt 1tuhlii titist do(trtc iron- . (all . . . het 69. Sta te % . Ztnm rit Lz 58 Ha w IO16, 566 1'. 2d 725 ( 1977). (ICMdetiii ii te t r ixiui it Ji 0n (1 (Pil Ia t nI((i Cori SYSti-r, hits 7tt. Id. atl 123.566) P. 2d at 736. invsalidatinig air) pitipot td registlafiont of land hi-lows Itigl 71 . Id. at 120- 121 , 566 P. 2d atl 734-735. %saiti-] rina k. (I-oti ty lnti omit ti-i.) 72. (;ounttv ofilawaiit 5..Solomyttra. stupra, 5-1 Ilaw%. 176. 183-18-1, 517 933. Staters. Zimmi,o. .slpna. 581 lass-. 106. 121. 566 1t. 2t1 725, 735. For P'. 2d1 57, 62, ct-ri. demtt-d., 4 191U15 872. Thi- couitalso ri-frred toi a disi uissittt of this cast-, see- ''Legal Flt tit Ito 1hysiual Changes tfl it- pubic ilust docrniotas a basis for itshold itg. Set-- "Hawaii's itli In- Li'tiat titt of liec sltimili itt-- il 111i- "Di-et m in atition of Pub ITI iclus[ D~octrine-. infra. 1 ida I Botundtaries, su pro 73. hI re- :a.t Iu le.51 I litw. 276, 27 7, 5(t6 P'. 2t1 1, 3 (1973). 9-1 I law. Gillst. artr. Xi. � I (Stipp. 1982). 7-1. Il(;ZNI 1. ..upra. non-, 1. at -15-48. 95~. Of liti- total otf 185 linear miles ofi sand) hi-at lits. 137 miiles abut 7:5. "Ou( )nu sinn iim itt 19 16 totk IL 5 list-s anoil a dosed S26 ittill iott ill Itt isivI owntcsttd ot ma naged alands. I I( M1P. sutpra . noite I. at dantagcs. ']'I In- 1960 i suaita mlitt Hilo k iiIt-t 61 peotpleit anti dcs- 1 18-1 I19. t:ti--i 3 ui iildillgs ( au iting $22 muillion fitol darnagi's."lid. at 3--i 96. Id. - atI2i. Scci als H itm Is- Ri-s. Stam. � 205A -2( )(I 1))iii). 76f. F-ti a it I u-Icf Eld% i SS 115 itt t td of i i s deic tIri jilt- w Issh Io it itrigiat i d at1 97. H1a w. Ris-. Stat - �� 171-26. 1 71 -35. A sit iilit ri-tiluti-rot-nt is ctmtittrtittt Ia ss-.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~180 sti-mp/ose ad oi-t/.''t 1.N.1 coe 8t s il tt ilit- stall II)Dt-partimt-itt Ti1la itsp ot atiuon Id. �266- ppl. 18-19. -1.5). Itt add ii ion, ouuntlit-s mlust r~i-qit Itt ii astalI shoit-tIi itt subxii - 77. 1 I iaw. 7 17 ( 1899). sitlics, wshiere public at( tss is not alteaily pros-idt-d. itdt-dicatc a 78. Illtit iom Ct-itral R.R %1. s-Iliimou., - -16 U.S~. 387 (1892). t igh of w isa y of -a sci-mtitt fort ate tss tit itt(- lard hi-lows iltt- bight- 79. II 1 lass, at 723-72.5. Tuel( tasi- imosv-ti d a prisati (Eirpioratiimtt's watt-i otatk. Id. � 46-6.5. rgh tt to (otrdi-itmi arid de-ve-lopI pay It of Htni l ulit Harbr rhi t ifo 98. Id. � 205)-32. Nonews.si rumiunsmoas h btbiti tilt lthset back art-aof iit-( ision hanttlt-d di wsn otul a y-e.ar afet liattnt-xaititio, titi- Hawsa ii not icss thani 2(1 tttt 001 1001 thiatt 40(1li-i- lantlssaid of titt(- Iotori dt-ni-d ilht- I orporayioni'ts ptow'- Ito (ondmi-n itSitbrergid -k-itppcrt ri-aeltis [t ic iwisa sht of wsavsts." A'Iid. At ctrdintg itt somet ]lanils. legal writers, this 1970 statilte "was passe-d to pirest-n furitt-r 80. Ti-ry. s. At-ri, slipra, I16 I lass. 363. t-nctiia(ltrti-tt tof publili h-aehtes In di-vilopers who wete build- 81. lId. at 376. inrg howItl s lit)I tothe itt- m- itt vtg-lation - attd in sist-ral instant-e-s, 82. A Ir is-a ii fi shtitng rigltis it-eiviised off icia I sri iti-ni it-cc ti tion in si-assartol f ttri-cianthigh w i takatlititdi sat- -Is 1839 asa si-i totf titAn Atir ito Ri-gulaite tii- axesantI entirt-i &- Ytrett .5up)10 toite 10. 1(1 Itass. B. J. at 8. flth Lawsss ft 18,10asChtaptir 111-8. 'Of (ri-i-ait protittitt'd fishing 99. Couttiv of ilauait v- .Soiomittra .supia, 54 [law%, at 182. 517 I'. 2d grouittids-Octani Lt-asing for iraian',i supray, non- 7, at V- 12!). atI 62. 83. Id. at V- 127. 100. - [111jigh t%( ri-C0IttdorlitiJuitIS and T-sOTAr (0TnpliJXVS hiave 81. Ibd--Ili-I aa i S- ICd-ie 89add i i- asso 1840 peli(r i ig it htiI i adiht tino t-ac-h ronl fitt- pitivis-i ithiat ilit- kiurobtikLi fi shtitg groutitl st-xi-rd ss-h-rt- prnpcrt~ no1t 0m mn itittd toil littoutiist intii ist has hai-it signifi - itt-i- happen toli let i no ri-is f Iromoit didislant t-f (itt rt- gi-tgra phi - caittIs- ed t]tu - Putbic it iseol 01n(4 aeu-fssibitv u ndeve-lopetd short-- a Iot t- t-ass-rtito hi hiat-i a los- a i-r at - - Id atV- 140 ii. Jatids is iiw tss- -tctiv-iIN , pireit hidedi by kaptt [taboltosigns thasi g 9. hit- fi-it-tittt I ofr-ic-spassitig si go s ari Lil tI- vi-foh ti teeni of iris- 85. I Iawiai Orgnitti At , 31 Statl. 14l. piass law." Commntrv,s.upra. ItitLi- 10, 26 uriasigs I.. J.at 823-82-1 86i. 0(hitt leasting joy Hlawvaii 511pri. ioto- 7, atl V-128. (loitoeltit s olltilt-le). Si-u alst 'Iowsr &- N'ti-ct, supra. noti 10. 10 87. Ot i 1(11 fi slieit I st-; wrei- ngistci-itd. atti aptllioxi maucl 250cit lii I-IawS B. - J at 5, a ssi-rtiitg: " A Iptiplui at usiois ttt if)t usinrg Ii shvtii-s ssi-li- opit-nit if) ffit pI l toh i Id. at iV-129. biat -lit-s for yt-ais o1 event gvn-lit-r icitus art - SlowlsIy living den it-d 88. Immtioui . Terr, 1941U. 1-)9.) ate - tr. 01S. 5 tts oIta-itsslil t l pzoyiti-ir lilt-ituti it be-aici- ( I91(i). I runid-st-olati]. 89. (:(litt-I %. IT tr., 1 H I -aws,. -165`(1902). Thei I lassaii tout Itt-lu that 101. FoIr i a Itii -f'd isti us5itt o f St aite rx n-i. Th/t it it io v. la-i-, 25-1 Ot - haioi c p Iy ais-alc l- opt-ri ... in rt i t- ti slit-ry wsas prtttei led tat I as 581I. -162 P'. 2td 671)(1969). bidding that tliti- ptublic is t hrdlted to iotg ig s tfiti staifii its wst-rill~t foitt , billtt Isi Iv ty WE-re- tt-pt-ah-td tsi- ult- di -sandt paridtlli (i-a-tfs--StoeadBa/ Vol.- 50, 110 inti- ()i at t NtA ir-s- lt;~oit-iytttl- sii'b-ausNt. 2, July) 19821, fill. I 6- 1 7, 19-20. the gits-itt-ntc hadt nut obligatitin ittiphi-iui itsditim-s againlst 102. Stai- s-. Zintrittg, supra, 52 H-aws. 472, 475, 479 P1. 2d 202, 20-1. it ji~ ir iil n-le by~ a i-i a gl- itt flit- Iawss. 'Ilti- otiri based its 103. C ;un-tmieati .sipra, notie 10, 26)1-ast in gs I.. J.- at 8317, Othe'r It-gal dut- i Si~ itt 01 O t il'tii Imulti( itriist domt irinv ii - 111 . Yuit Tow sr tun W ittI S st it- that " -lilt (all Iti- fOunCI ill atgutit- that by anitent isetled, nto i- Ii), at 26-27 - Foullowsintg rIit- U.S. Stpllmt-it Court's HawIa iianu sitsagt al pittisits ittj iyetd a(tisscii e oilto Ian] tinit-- tt-vs-tral ofi itis dit-isituit fii- Hatsaii itliti[ ieee timtlI ic statits of so tittd basiso att anldsignaitiw li-dln lt lin~r-' tit k-ineito/i tAlighti is asvs--sit-t pilopmtri) y iglts1 ,i ituit '. Ts-. 75u tt a 31 &- Y it-t - 5 tpra -noitt I C, 1011im IaB- J. -at 12. T c litasst-it that lhf-ic- Haws. 678. 692( 193))): /sp u sa-s-Ten. - I8 flaws. -i6(i.462 wstiv anlicttti Hawsa ii an trails hothI alI tig dlVi SIhOtcilint- anid oti (11)07); Iii re ! un tttga, II 16Ilaws. 31)6, 31)8(19(1-). St-ial so C 1 moutain ititlati idgi-s Ixti-ctithlg dowsstt flit i- short-. Ibid. Luiat-tt nopttuu 10, 26) Ilastitigs I.J1. arl 839-8-i I. 10-I. 4-1-1 US. 16-I (1979). 91). 35 I H~iis. 6)18 (19-l0). 105. TlilI fi-ilit a n aviga trioalI st-vit it-du astdlisi i gutislit-t frimn) Cast'- 9 1. On abou . ltt (10 hjrmiotjkj fert1i ics ri-titaint. most otf ss-ithI art- rIttvis t-xtstiilg tittilt liii pbitit ii list do( if ilu-, is basedt oilt thv ;fltattiti Oahul . 0(ett-il Leat g for Itaiatta, stbulna huhl 7, at iilttttiats-illi-I.Cosititi.141abItitkidistussiori V- 129i. itofhi ftdt-t h-a Ir s-li gatit tonaliti il -s--./o ai!lta t Vol.- OCTOBER 1983 17 -19, No. I. Janunary 1981I pp. 1 6- 17. c ial I tid ret re-attonial f i sher"Ien ' O-eanl Leal.N ing fo r 1 Iauvva 106. .14-1I T'S. at 166-167. supra, nte~t 7, at 11-10-1 1. 107. + I U.S. at 180. 117. let. at V11-I-22. 108. Ofcean Leasing for flawaii, supra, note 7, at V-149. 118. 1 faw. Guist. art. Xi. � Ii (Sttpp. 1982). 109. Slate v. Zjmtrinq, .supra. `58 I law, at 119, 566 P. '2d at 73-1. 119. [ law. Rev. Stat. �� 171 -:5, 171-36 (Sitpp. 1982). 110. Terr. v. Kerr, itipra, 161flaw. :363.1 that cadhwve.te court 120. lId. � 171-26 (Supp. 1982). said the governmenit could require a littoral owner to remnove a 121. flaw. Rev. Star. (tl. 2105. concrete seawall extending onto the tidelands. 122. Ocean Leasing for Hawaii, nipra, tote 7, at U'-3. MI. [law. Rev. Star. � 171.36(9). 123. f law. Rev. Stat. � 20.5-31I et .%eq. 112. HUICMP, s'uprn, note 1, at 1 13. 121. 1IlCZ,%IP, supra, note I, at 21. [-he 'shore-line'' is definied in die 113. Gecrald S. Clay, an attortncy in private practice in Honolulu, was setback statute as 'the ttpper reaches of the wash (if waves, other selected by rthe Department of Planning and Economic IDevel- than storm arid tidal waves, ltsuall) evidenced by the edge of opmnent as consultant to prepare the report atd was its principal vegetation growth, or the upper line of dlebris left by the wash of author. Ocean Leasing for llawa ii, supra. note 7, at i. waves." flaw. Rev. Stat. � 205-31 (2). 1 14. 'Aquaculttire is defined as the propagation and cultivation of 125. Id. � 205A-21 et seq. (Sttpp. 1982). aquatic animals and plants for profit or social benefit. The 126. The statute coittains at detailed definition of what is or is not a aqluaculture activities which take plate in brackish water or ''developmnent" within SNIAs. lid. �205A-22(3) (Supp. 19821). It seawater are termed mariculture." lid. at II- I (footnote otnittetd). also sets forth guidelines for the management and p)ritectioin of 115. T-he basic process of oTrEC is one of drawing cold water from resources within SMIAs. ittcluding provisions for publ ic b)each deep ocean areas to the surface and trapping the energy released access. Id. � 205A-26 (Supp. 1982). as the cold water is heated." fICZNP, .YuPra, note I, at 115. 127. I law. Rev. Stat. ch. 205.A (Pt. 1) (Supp. 1982). 11lb. ''A fish aggregation device is a floatitigorsttbmerged structure 128. Id. � 205A-I1(5) (Supp. 1982): I-CTNIP-.supra. note 1. at 99. deployed in the ocean to attract, congregate and hold fishes and 129. For a list of these ageticies. see id. at 99-103. oilier free-swimmring aquatic organismis for harvest by commer- 18 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XIV': The Maryland Approach ByI PITE:R 11. F. (;RABER Attorney, it Law' Sn l Franlcisco, Califormtlin HF-SAPEAKE BAY-the nation's largest and most Coastal zone lands may be divided into uplands, productive estuarine complex'-slices through tidelands and submerged lands.'3 the heart of Maryland. Almost one-third of the state's total area lies under the waters of this magnifi- A. Uplands cent bay and its dozens of tributary rivers.2 cent b ay and its d ozens for tributhe variety and d Along the shores of Chesapeake Bay and its tributar- ..The Chesapeake is famous for the variety and delec- ies, such as the Potomac, private parties have tite to the lability of its shellfish.5 For several decades, however, vast majority of tie littoral and riparian uplands.4 the bay's ovstei harvest and blue crab yield have been Although the state's Atlantic seacoast includes the fed- dramatically shrinkling.4 One reason: increasing pollu- erallv owncd Assateague Island National Seashore, tion in the Chesapetake and its tributaries. A September private parties own most of bth uplands in Ocean Crit 1983 report by the 1United States Environlmental Protec- and elsewhere on Fenwick Island and adjoining the tion Agent y characterizes the bay as "clearly an ecosys- coastal bays.' temrn in decline." " BerstCepk nds itsn tributaries Privately owned coastal wetlands such as marshes are Because the (Chesapeakoe and some of its tributaries extensively regulated by the state and local govern- extend into adjoining states, Maryland faces a difficult ments.'6 task in coping with the estuary's diverse legal and environmental problems. Maryland joined with Virgin- B. Tidelands ia to create the bistate Chesapeake Bay Commission in 1980 to address bay pollution and other issues.6 In the When the Declaration of Independence was signed wake of the EPA's recent report. governors and other on July 4, 1776, the State of Maryland succeeded the officials from Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania English crown as theownerofall previousl- ungranted conferred in December 1983 to "articulate a set of lands under tidal waters within its borders.7 strategies foi management of the bay that are techni- The state's right to grant such lands into private cally sound, economically feasible and politically ownership was upheld by Maryland's highest tribunal, implementable."7 the Court of Applxals, in 1821.'1 An 1862 statute, how- Currently, Maryland's lawmakers and administra- ever, prohibited the issuance of patents to lands covered tors seem to be concentrating on the estuary's wars by navigable watersb. In 1943 a law was enacted per- and the 4,000-milt shoreline of the Chesapeake and its mitting the state Board of Public \orks to sell tide- feeder rivers.s But serious legal questions have also lands to anyone for a consideration that the board arisen along the Old Line State's 31 miles of Atlantic decided was adequate.20 This sweeping authority was Ocean coast.9 Foi example, Ocean City (Fig. I ), a popu- limited in 1970, and the board now can sell these lands lar resort on an erosion-prone barrier island, has been only to adjoining upland owners.2' the setting of major litigation over conflicting private and public rights to use the beach.'0 C. Submerged Lands Maryland has title to submerged lands within three TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN geographical miles of its Atlantic coast by virtue of the THE COASTAL ZONE Submerged Lands Act of 1953.22 It and oilier East Coast states lost their claim to the area beyond that line in a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court case.2 As defined in the Maryland Coastal lanag ent 1975 S Supreme Cort ase.2 Program, the state's coastal zone embraces Baltimore City and 16 counties botdering the Atlantic Ocean, ; 1-T- l, r .......... ... ..t.f .... .. law an, t h/r7 l. ..m. ..a.... ,rrta, ..n.ts "I tlb, Chesal)eake Bay and the Potomac River upstream to l .t .. ...Il. "tal,,,', . .tt .IM,,' ,t .rtl Iglt. , , ll .,. I Washiingtoti, D.C.' The zone inc ludes all of thIe Mav- 1 M." h..II.N .l s.. . land portion of tlhe Clhesa pake and etx te(ds sea ward to ,,, ,..,. . ...,,.,,, . ,,,,.- .1.,,,,,,, , ,, .I,,,-,.,,.,, ,. ..... the 3-mile limit of tlihe state's j uiisdiction in the I l fIb i ' I'IIir / ( ..I.I. .. .. AtlNUARYlltit . t.,.,t., , I.,. ,,, , ,,. 11)1984 3.1 JANUARY 1984 3 a gi. ,; 4;;3- * * , . , :cureyofSepe ... Leatherman, nivet f M-an. co upcoast from the north jetty and the erosion downcoast from the south jetty. In a significant legal decision involving shorefront > property at Ocean City, the state's high court subordinated public beach access rights to private developmental rights. (Photo z courtesy of Stephen P. Leatherman, University of Maryland.) DETERMINATION OF TID)AL BOUNDARIES Evidein e in [fiat cast- indicated that thle beach it, ( im-stion had accreted all average of 1.6 feet atutitial ly 't weeri I 85(1) ard ] 929, ihen had eroded somne 270 feei A. Upland Tlideland Boundary htor i 1929 1(1 19,17 arid 'was 450 feet nriarowei '' followv- irir tihe seNvere Mar Ih 1962 storm ''than it hadlt('(b'Ii iii Alt iottighi slir ieti(lelatiti' ateI pr ~ivatel owriwd,` tInI 1922.41l IDistitiguitising thte result of tli(e 1962 stiorti ine~ (II rItealt high seatet iiigeit l is till watet ward ftorn gtadual ejosion, thre court said that fi the aiig 1)1op1(1IIN litittitil\t '(II piv'dt littoiutl hlards."l Il 1971 'would cleat ly be' classified as ail avulsioro,""4 adding: the states hlighe-st ( o[tIl apllrt-dr~ at Iial ju~dge.s deliri- . .It wvas of short duration, flooding mudh of Oce-an tort( olc Ithe III nn hIIh wAi niatk aI (.ItI i L"isC at itsheight, aniddestroing orexesie darnag- tilt 1-1 hiplif I tlt'.'ttitit (if W~lte inl Ihi (ollrt () tll( irig liosues aiid otheri struc tures. W~hen it w-as over, ithe I1I1Sk1I,. t(L11Il I. jit I I ImII IItIdI, Nn ft Ix Id II ti waIter 'rr'(Vdedec,Ileavinig most of the( land unchanged, xi ltn~iit 1l4 it mk ol'(.a 4 11%\jtl , Ahove drat hilutI c m eqeir lot thilt disappeararue of thle dunes wichi I haid XI til :lol sIIt Ill SIt hI )IIN)IINII tsiit II- ar I fb I( ) i. lied lilt beia h. The- idea thtat title( reerlted to the( state lotle it l411 tory p)11?p .oes.ti utdet- til'Mt, NbNa ld Wet - (tit( e ithe land wvas tremporarik lvfooded is Simply) TIM it l~iii~l A('t, the un (If 'mean igh tie, affcted lv tin eriilllt~licltittil."'4, le lansAt.ris fitrintifl ftietd is(lid'.1* Iti 1975. after this Ocean Citi, decision, Maryland's land ward l mte ofSatwet ns.' Ho tvj .hr~ legislature., tile CGeneral Assembly, passed the, Beach Ii it If Sta latils''2 Hou'~'r th'r'iS Erosion Control District Act.", This statute establishes ap~patremn tv sonlic i ti( cr-tia tt about tithe proper mnethod a beach erosion control district on Assateague and of locating that boundary ~~'. Fenwi6ck Islands along the state's Atlantic shore, ''pro- liilits certain activities writhin the districtI and provides for the( payment of compensation for any taking of B. Legal Effect of' Physical Changes in theIrvteprJ'tyrgs.5 Location of the Shoreline W~ill iiSonin qltal ifitat ions, Maryland follows thle RLN' tidal waters shift with those gradual, imfpcircplbtib ULCTIJTDCRN pilt sic a] changes i termed a( retiurn and erosion1. as - . astae cono tr i ogmizedan plan IUnli ke courts Iin su( II states as California", and New Asery I :~ . jerseN 7~ the Maryland Court of'Appeals has not expan- ownerIs right to accetions at (ommon law.51' Then, In sivelv .-applied Ite p~ubl)ic trust doctrine-, the concept 1862, thils right was set out tIn a stat tile: deali r wvih iit Ithe jl ic's riglhts ofnai a%-gtonand fish- liht. proprietor (if tiland oinutdtrtg oil ay (of theniavi - g 9 ga iltwatrs If lt s Satestt IIlieenttle toallaece-i ng Ili tidal waters.11 Howvever, the( state's high tribunal liolns o salid landll~iml( e 'so (fsi ae hte has recognized ptibli( rights in tide-covered lands. her etofore. 01hr 'I formelfd or madie liv nalt i Interesingly, the original Charter oif Maryland it) ('Fatts('s W~o~'aoe..' 1632. by which the lands and waters now. wvithin thie I loW(vervc, thils stat nit tryIanguage waes amb~iguoius for stalle were gran ted by) the English crown to the lord ses'eral reasoins. I'irst, ''it otiftises at cretioin, w~hich is a prolirietoir of the co(lony'. exp~ressly refers to these rights. gradutal arid is )'c'~ il ul-p ol il depositso(n Tile grant of Caeci lius Cal vert. Lord Baltimore, was the( shorte, wit I re ich tiol, wvhich is anl (xpostlrcof sull- subije'ct to a re'serva tion in favor of the king, his heirs meriged land bytert([si(n(ft(Ia('.'1Neod and his subjects p)reservitig their right of navigation "it is unla htaetton tnd . iherwiis(' art', '' 'it tild'sea, bays, straits, and navigable rivers, as in the raising thet quest iont of w'itethet a littoral landownert- harbours. ibays, arid creek's of the province. . -."I"' c.art exp~and iris holdings byN filling adjoining wvater- Airticle 5' of tli(e Dteclar'atiorn of Rights. embodied in ((ve'red atr'a S. every Maryland Constittition since 1776,50 provides The Maryland Wetlantls Act,34 passed in 197(0 and] that "the Inhlabitantisof Mary'lanidare- ...entiuled tc all treating a blroatl TCegularOrN scheme, superseded thet lpiopetrty' derived to thlem from, or under the Charter 1862 stat it e1" T'hiis newt law, Iitolikec Ihe repealed stal- granted by His Mlajesty Charles the First'' to Lord Bal- utie, ('Intai ts tiit ttplatid ownric toI natural' accret iotns tniore.-" This pr ovision has been judicially construed oin l.-Il Al thottghnthi's piortioni oif tdi( W'etla ids(l A( Ihas as subjecting tlI(' gra nts of tide-flowed lands itito pri- no(11 ben judicially conlstrue(dl iii a cas(' invonlving a N'at(,ownerlcshli toi thepubllic-'s righits ofjnavigationianid dispute h)(tiweeti tlie, state and a lpriva te part v,1 tilt fi shning.12 statuitory priovision ialt;ii-as to be sli iiaI to thectase law Oine legal writer, while noting that "'the doctrine of in California. U ndt-r that state'scdecision, private latnt- publi~l: trust has p~laye'd a part in Maryland commron owneris art' deprivscd (If the( benefit of artific ial Iy catised law since 1821,'"I concl ided in 1973 that the corncept aecret ions.38 "'is 130t widely accepted'' within thle state."4 Two years In fleparlinwni of "alltraI Rr~otlm' ' v. 0(cea C1(.ity"" later, in the pr('vottsly disetissed Ocean Gity case,5. the thec Niarl-Niand high (oulrtl eripliiasi?('( Itle tlistul61 iitii stiite's Court of Appneals recognized that Maryland bilt eeril erostoin and ;IN fulsitt . Tbh1' t(oit I recogtn iled holds its tidelands for tilt' pubilic beniefit,51 hot never- lilart lit state( ga itis t it Ito1( fasts lttid trhat[ betcomens Sub- tIteless refused to haplly) the( public trust doctrine to thet Ilerged as IIIhe reStll of gradlial erosionl, bil Iw((1du~ tile dri-sanod beach betwutti tin'- vegetat ion (or d unc() lint' that rule "is not appuhclille t o aml avulsioll, de-finedt its it atid tIli' inan(' highn-water mark.57 'uddert ot v'olertt chatoge, which does Itot genlerl Illy l-t Tis cast' invo'(lvedl a pIIIINately (Iwned upland tract at affect land botiridarnies, 0'( v anl City; the( state( asserted that the propJost'd COnl- JANUARY 1984 structionl of a four-story condominiumn on the site " A person who is thle ownlr if lnd lloundling on liaviga- would effect i vly dleny thile public use of the beach.5" The ble water... may make imni,o re ts into thc d 'latel il hont slate claimed that the English crown's reservation uinder of the land to preserve that pe rnon'l taie , '.s to hec natigable the 1632 grant to Lo.d Balt imore guaranteed the pub- wate or rotect the oft hitl pson Igailst cto.,iol1. Affe' gara teerur protect tha shoref'hll( oft tl vd against r� popi.' After lic's right to use tilhe dry part of the seashore as well as the owner of he to it is tdi hel t sea itsel'59 T1he court conceded that "[t]he scope of the toile lit is t ai S' rights reser'ert is strikingly reminiscent of Roman r wharf out a nd co nstruct other 'iproveme nt s law,"60 under which the seashore was common for all r61t t into the adjoining water, originati ing an 1862 sta- However, the court refused to look into the "[i]ntrigu- tue, was repealed y) the Vctianls Ict74 Bt tIe stte 's ing... questions" raised by this early reservation.62 Thest court has eclared that ot re s, tile position taken by tile Maryland tribunal contrasts with riparian right granted In 1862 has been carried that of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which in 1978 forward and is alive it the Wetlands law.''5 applied the public trust doctrine to the dry-sand part of a municipally owned beach landward of the mean high- tide line dl(ler limited circumstances.63 LEASING AND REGULATION OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS A. Leasing In the Ocean City case,64 discussed above, public recreational use of the dry-sand portion of the beach A statute authorizes Maryland to lease tile lands was subordinated to private property rights. By a 6-1 underlying the state's sovereign "inland waters"-such margin, the Maryland Court of Appeals declined to as Chesapeake Bay-ald its 3-mile-wide band of Atlai- apply various legal doctrines employed by other states' tic Ocean waters.76 courts as a means of encouraging public beach access.65 The Maryland court held that (1) none of the area within the private landowner's upland tract had been B. Regulatory Functions either expressly or impliedly dedicated to the public, (2) the facts of the case did not support the claim that the Since 1970, Maryland's "wetlands" have been exten- public had obtained an easement by prescription and sively regulated under the Wetlandls Act.77 The statute (3) the facts failed to show the ancient use of the area divides wetlands into two classes: (1) "State wetlands." necessary to apply the doctrine of custom.66 In uphold- or lands under navigatlle, tidal waters below the line of ing the owner's right to construct a condominium on mean high tide, except any such lainds that have been the tract, the majority said: validly granted into private ownership,76 and (2) ''pri- "... What the [state and other] petitioners are attempt- vate wetlands," or those lands bordering oni or lying ing to do here, under an assertion of the public's right beneath tidal waters that support aquatic growth and to picnic and sunbathe on the dune, is to deny the that are not deemned state wetlands.79 [owner] a use of his property to which he has an other- Straightforw;rd, stringent restrictions are l;l-ed on wise lawful right: the right to build [improvements the use of state wetlands: "A p1erson mlay not dredge or extendiilnlg to Oc tan City's building limit line. , 67 exteding to cat City's building limit line. ' ' fill on State wetlands, without a license.'' The use of Judge Eldridge dissented, concluding that "the land- private wetlands s govrnd by a iore co plex prce- owner and his predecessors in title have recognized the p public's right to use and the public's useof thedry sand Uner the witlalller imitations o11 pr Ilvltu; beach to such an extent, that an implied easement to the public for recreational purposes has been created."68 resources prepares boundary maps delineating tle wetlands,st and then promulgates rules and regula- He based his conclusion on the totality of the circum-an d then proules and regula- stances involved, including, amongothers, the"unique ins governing status" of the beach accorded by the 1632 Charter of ocal jurisdictiona- Despite these rules and regula- ltions, the statute declares certain uses of private wet- Maryland, the limited length of the state's ocean shore- line compared with its inland tidal shoreline and "the the rules and regulations may be authorizes o under understanding of the citizens ... that the entire beach at permits issued by the secretary of i;latal inresources. Ocean City is open to the public. ,69 Despite a legislative effort to promote public beach Before a 1981 change in the law,95 it Wls ne(-essary for access, by means of a statute intended to mitigate the strictly with the Wet of Ntural Resoures tor (onlp effects of erosion alolg the Atlantic coast, the Maryland stricugating rules and regultios to edsure thir vlid- mulgating rules and regulations to ensure their valid- Coastal Management Program recognizes the existing ity and enforceability. This was demonstrated in the limitations oil access to the waters of both the ocean 1980 Hirsch decistil,6 in which theMaryand Court of and Chesapeake Bay.70 Appeals held that a waterfront property owner (ould not be required to restore wetlanlds to their nlatural PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS condition after they were filled in violation of such rules and regulations. The court found that the state In addition to the right to accretions,71 private had not fully complied with the act's filing requlire- upland owners in Maryland enjoy access to the abut- ments. The owner had purchased after tile filing fail Lre ting tide and submerged lands.72 The Wetlands Act of and may have been unaware of wetlatids restrictions on 1970 provides: the land.87 6 SHORE AND BEACH After heHrc csth tl dsAtwas amnended 6i. Ovattiilton ()I lit tonirntissiot. iositi n~ttg of 14 mt'mbers-severi to declare the rtiles and regulations to be valid and b ons va III stir I-atid itwrdt-ne Ito advisethe IIIVIo stat Ies' legisl a Ifo; enforceable~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dcspta faIn to file thmpoe] pro i al ati ola rt-sponinm its Chusalicake Baj problemns of enforceable desp~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Iteain irtoto ni Irotiy pr-mtime I tomrt;t wa, amttoitt-diit hs 1980NMd. Lawls , (5756.67-1. viding an owner had act ual notice of the regulations I 982 Mmd. 1,aw% II. 393. iotdifif-d ;it Md. Nat. Rt-s. (attc Antm. � before filling or dredging wetlands." 8-302 ci %cq. (Sup p. I 9821. and Its I980 V'a Acts If. 662. (odifitsd Aside from the Wet lands Act, which has statewide a;l V.1. Cod( � 62, I-69.5 el i seq applicability,, some of Mlaryland's coastal lands are also 7. I PS Uhe.%aprk hela i (;ofnfcrencc, Status R~eport I (j Ltel( 1983 ~Itt thiis rt-ltort, writf' tItI ot dvau net of dtil- p itilui relen se of t he EPA' subj'ect lo mnore localized restrictions. For example. a repirt I. it wais statedt: 'Th- forinference processis britign driven, loa state law-. prohibiting thecdiedging, taking and carrying largc ;'xit'tt to tIll- [EPA] Chesapeake Bai% Program ... ITJte away of sand anid grav'el from the tidal waters or marsh- Itt~t Intttiltt Is being t'Xplessly tailored to east in a managetnct't lands of only, a single designated county was adjudged himttiv%%otk tto- nrtw knowledgev we have gained from tlii Bay% constitutional .8 Similarly, the court upliel d a not h e PI gitattt abottt lutstt icnfls, toXi( s, 20nd tiltt re-lationtshtips htertcu wsater (uatttit attd fix~ing ri-silmtts." bibd. count y's powerI, tIn~der its a uthoritv toCenaCt lOCAl Z(11- S . 1-igonl(s lot h It-lie ll't of [fth- shore ofI the baN. anid its rivet VIrittittlat - ing oid ina nces, to regulate an upland owner's right to its 'S -i ItIItI MatI V ilttts tIfrItica Of IOthIe Ch~lte wake vt'sttarttim(ofI whlarf outY.9 plix Nits . dup-nd'tinig oil hows thut shoreline is measured. fiot Suclt regulatory laws as the 1970 Wetlands Aci'lt and] ('Sanipflc, thit Alarvla~td C;oastal Mlan~agementt Program dot i- tint-nt states that NIbitlattits part of ''the Chesapeake Ba) aten is the 1975 Beach Erosion Control District Act92 are elhara~tcuiiitt lIn over 4,000 miles oft grt'atl indenited sho ,relinc.'' among the numerous existing statutes that were ''nel- NICMP, supia note ),at I. Oin the otltet hand, a legal commenta- worked'' into the Marvland Coastal Management Pro- tor. citing att enc~yclope-dia, writes that Maryland Iha% 'approxi. grm"The state Department of Natural Resources, matt-tel 3,2001 nil-s of coasilinc, primarily along the Chesapeake gram.93 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~BaN arid its trihutaries,..." Rec('nt Decisions, Ertforcernentof the through its 'ridewater Administration, is the lead /Ila-vlantd W~etlands Act ''Bogis Down'' ntithe Couit IoJ,'pprals. agency in administering the program,94 which the Fed- I 1 IMd. L. Rev. 137, 138 (1981) (footnote omitted). eral Government appioved in September 1978. 9. ICIMP. atpya note, 1, at 1. IC. See ''lr-galI Efficit ot Phtysi eat Chtanges in thfe Ioca tion of rise ShIort-IiuIte' under ' "Ivi-t tr tnat ion of 1 idalI Boti tdaris,'' "Mary- latnd'sPullic Trtust Doctrine''and "Public Access Rights,'' tf-ra. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1I. ICINP..sufima note I, at 72. 12. Id1. at 73. 'Iti-( Chtaffer (if Maryland in 16321 ''itlttded all tilt The author is grateful to Emil H-. Bradley, Jr., Mark islands within 3-1.5 miles oft Mar-Nland's eastecinmost shore.'' A. Butterworth anid Trisha Dednarz of the Tidewater kRecent Develtpitnvilts. llroptrrll-Goa~stal Shows., 5 11. Bfaht. L. ReV. 31,35-1 (1976). Maryland embraces preltions of Atlantic Administration, Department of Natural Resources, O<cin harrier islands thai cross over thet starr' boundary anid and Thomas A. Deming, assistant atiorney general, extenld into Veaat iTol~ ginia. State of Maryland, for providing sonic of the source 13. This classificationi is used for rons~enicnce arid consistr'ney with material cited in this article. othcr articles in tltis series. 1-lowt-vem, tltt' tertltfoiestore is some- tintus ttsd itt Maryland case law and legal writings to referto thi' lands betwet-n fthe lin s of higlt andl low t id',i.e.. t idelandms, antd tito' words st4battuious landi are lre-qoently used ito describe both REFERENCES t~~~~~~~~~idelands attd sohoterged( lands. REFERENCES ~~~~~~~~~~14. U planrd s own-d by pgovt'mtmental ert titics auiut i ng t hi shoreline of the( Maryland portiotn of Chesala-akc Bay, the Potomac anti I .Stale of Maryland Coastal Mlanagemnet Pmograro and Final other tributar-y river-sextenild the following linear mil-s along thet Ent'ironntenlal Impact Statement 1, 57. 440 (1978) [hereinafter ba'1ioen lersr'bns eea o-rnet 96miles: cried as MICNMP]. The program was prepared under the federal stati-, 215: (ournries, cities anid other local ageticies, 34. U plands Coastal Zont' Managrimenit Act of 1972, as amnirded, 16 U.TS.C. � along, thel remaining parts of ithe shoreline-art estimated( 3,600 1451 el seq. For a brief discussion of the bay's interesting history ntil's-ari' priviairtly ownved. Telephone ( onversationt ott OFct.20, anid extensive natural resources, see, U.S. Dep't of Interior, Che. 1983, wsithI Trisha Dednari, Goastal Resource Divisiorn, Tide. .sapeakr Bay its Legal IPemspecttte (1970) [hereinafter cited as watet Admintistrationt, IDrpartmeitt of Natural Resources, State Chesapeake Bay]. This excellent report, part of the Estuarine o tf Marvland. Pollution Sttudy Se'rie's.,was pre'pare'd undet contract by tilte tUti. Ut 'rItt tltu f-di-tal ( oastal Zionu Nlartagt-ttn-tt Act tiof 1972, v'ers ity rtf MarylIantd Se hooI of Law. Prof. Garrett Power wasit I tilt- ritally , wti'tt to1 mnat agi-d landos atm't-i I oJded f rout IIr I Mat) project direc tor. latdol nastal I oitt- Hi U.S.C. � I1453ia). Thii Alied'ectt Proving 2. Tht m- av~, wh icl lit's wirIthirt bothI Marv~ and anid Virginia, ltas a G; oltitds -at I Atl tit Isi aIlaii ott, is aritotig SttiIth fedet at Ia ds. Itt surface area of about 4,300 square miles. It is 165 nautical mile-s tUtted Staters %. Ilolbttes. A 1I I-iial tell (1). Nid. 1 976). tltu- tUS. long and has a total shorel inte of 4.612 miltm's Chiesa pea ke Bav, Di stric I Ci ittr Itt-I lit tt tiltt Fit(I(.i-r I (a verit rut-n ownetd ando had supra note I, at 1, 39. tltt exi 1t v It-e r iglt foiposst-ss, tj.s- andI c onroril stibattiti-ots laends 3. Id. at 43. tittill ftill ploxsirig grtottds (tt-pitt ilt-rr Sltti- tof Mttlarylan's 4. N.Y'. Tintcs, St'pt. 27, 1983, at II, col. I - Maryland leads thei tlaitit itt tirtl- atti assci-irlo ol 1pttilit riglts itt tlt- lTieds. nation in ttystt'r and crabftprodu~ctiotn. MICM P supra notin' I. at 2. I.5. - -( )ci-nit ( ,t t ... is r ~ittia 1 of tIh( ivi-cri-atii i a I iratli a rea,'Ahfti ch A discussion of irtte Chesapewake Bay fi shery- resourt ets is bey)ond alt.r stjtittji t toti xi nedv III (I nhlo it tal ptessitri- ''i to- hi-athI as tltt' stopc of this artielt- See generally Chesapeake Bay-, sulpra Oct-an :iry is of vxct'ltiitttal a-stltt'til s-altti. vit ( lse ti sortt of note- 1,43!, 74, 87-89. 111 (Maryland), 116-117 (Virgittia), 214-222. tlti' najor IIaI)0LIai4rhItr (CIttlilatir fnritttt East. lit famtorte-lifttt For more etra i led It-galI discussions of Maryland's managerrmo t o f t Ilti' Nat it t's rtal to Ip t ilttiont ot. . Imers withttit [25(1 mitt vs of of thteoyster resourcesof tlte bay, see Power,AMore About Oysters Oscani City].'' Juttnt-y. flitrealiottal Beaches: The- Rig/u to a Than You Wanted to K'nowt, 30 Md. L. Rev. 199 (1970); Less'is & .Scottr c Itcourte, 3 tU.Mdt. L.. Ftirtrn 121 (I 973) (foomitttt ottiti- Strand, Douglas v'. Seacoast Products~, ]I(t.. The Legal and Eco- itd). The' r-Itict ic ightlso tiltth pritl it antI trivsair' landowsners tio???irC (ousequettiesfjtr the Alarvlaoid Ovstcry, 38 Md. L. Rev. I at 0O uni City latvu bet-it atljtdi ared itt rttu iomittitarirt cast-s of (1978). Oipto attlJeo~te .t) Petir (:tir, 27-1 Mid. 1,312 A.2i1 630 5. N.-Y.- Ti rtts, sit ra tFtotw 4t, at 11 , (o1 I. - Ihis ''3itt to g oorn) (1l97.5).an Dep'l~c of Nat itra IllesNoutno -.s Cro(-tpper, 27-1 Mdt 25, is- i-olu tlt ~il tt iti srve; -ea sttd o ri- os ''o nstittg 27332 A .2d 66-1 (1975). Sit''t "] d ite At tiss R ightrs,' - inrt~a rtit hit;, was rvimast-td SepIt. 26, 1983e, let itbr EPA. It hla, 1xtitt I 6. Mum ItiI ofIht stittirlitr (If Clit-salm at.a; Biij , espti' iANll mitt ttt;' i'StInI a led'I tatI Mir Ilattit ,1, i's" IFiritui, Nt-IF)trI-tsylvuia ttle it]tIII Fck-I ttis ItEaserti Shtowt is lthrioftviin-d itri salt rnkarshtts. MICMP, .surla (;ioserrttti-tir woollrtri-i-tto spirtinl h1it Iotutovs--ta If0.)cat 1ieritxl ttn ore I, at 2. I-it a tmt it-I (list fissiont of Marylandi's 197(1 Wellanrds lott least til ihci bay. Il'id. Art, 1970t Mdt. 1.itws It. 2-I I , oflf i I' d atI Mid NatI. ReVs. Codi- Anit i. JANUARY 19847 9-101 el .%eiq, (1983), cO~d softie "lore Ice alized regulations, see navigable waters.'' btit that "Littdiwniit' 1,1 ic hiadl f illed cud L sigand Regulation of Coastal lon)te Lands and Watters,'' attempted ito reclaimi land prior t lto Ji (Is III. iltc ' dcccl isill 17. infra. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~still have to ciontecd with Ilte ni crntamii's iii hc ld plii ic 7.Martin % Wa'cddell,1 Ill'S. (6 Pet.),i67,108( 18-12): KerpclianI V . sions: . . '' Note, sNpra note 9,30 %Il. L. Rvs c 2.5) fioomiici lid. ofI'tib. Wfork.c,'_Iti %IdNc. 136, 115,276 A.2d156,6l, cert. denied, Omiitted). 104 U .S.858 (197 1). l,'ir af brief discussion (f Maryland's colonial 36. Md. Nat, Res. Code Anti. � 9-20) (I 983). ciriginls .iid vail I grants Ofiltide-cvered lands to .private parties, 37. Telephoiec~iis i.'satioiii ccc fIDt. 19, 19H3. with licica DPitt' see Chsp(k I1QV, cNPra note 1, at( 21-27, 83-86, 90-93. Tile ing, assistaruattiirn"e giviicril cud -ounse1cc l csvceta proiprit'tir ancd cfIte (olcicy had patented title to land under water resources, State tof Mar y land. to i ndciiduialIs, stihje tc ii o Public rights of ciaviga tion and fisher- Ini an opi nionc i ss ed iii 1972, t lie ,ct iii ii ginci aI f Mali % 1 .i iid tesas erls s 163. (a-o'v's Lessee v'. itiloes, I Gill 430, 39 Am. set forth his official views i1) lt st.iit. siit reLit ig totpili~iiatidli if Dec. Brown ( . 1841).~- the Wetlands Act. 57 Of)p. Md. Act 'y Geni 115 i1972). \lilcccigi 18. lroicn s . ecci'd~' If. Q~ J 195 (M~d. 1821). this published opinion dos liii]cciit ait lcd' eilciaiilit 11i'i 19. 1862 Mdt. Laws 137: this statute was formerlv coditfied at Md. as do) opinions iif tire state's hiik'tist (,)ill it lieci cieles-s is ofi Ann. Code act. 51, � 18. See Note, Alar),land's Wetlands: The considerable significance. Aftei a detvialed aiialsiso citlirlevt1cant Legal Qciagcn ire, 30 Md. L. Rev. 210, 2 12 (197-0). ''Since tile law in Mar'l ad cii acd oi cler jittrisd ic lioniis, i lii' atom- gene c~c~rii'ral enatitoetit iii this section patents have been denied, . . . by the conicluLded, i ts p i t: stt]Land Officeaid iy tihecourtsif tiledcsired land wasutider ''It is our opiniiidi . that acids Igcrecdccaliv' siiuiit'igei I)N Ih naigaith I- ater.'' Id. ait 2 12 if. I11 (citations urnitted). See also process of erosionc it i ciiie~ aew c i is[i . Ludl )(i scloiw Chesapeake flav, Nupmra icice I, at 93-94, 96-101 (.written before thermean high-wait'-r luei c'cs'ci'i(tIb dic tetate]1.n lthle oilier ficiiii, cutrrent lf,i wsva s eliotctid). lands inundatedbIy water Ihirocigi 1r'a I oti itoftcrc c odilie 24). Md. Atn. (iCode art. 78A, ,� IS (Supp. 1982).na rIph iittiafa.scd'ncatii'wciiltctli i iiSat 21. lei. art. 78A � I5A (Scipp. 1982). wetlatcds. Sicha(ueCiUS ailCas Whiicth Icecollce last land liii octgh 212. 67 Stitt. 29: co (iclifed atl 13 U .S.C. ,� 1301 et seq. unlicensed artificial imtic ovcicyicittis, pr i iiitdu t Illst' tii n 2 3. (!?mecd Ntate~s v. M.aiple, 120 U.S. 515, 517-518 ( 1975). The deci- ments result iii rtpudaid F i cite t iniiivcrc~ptibcle c licntgr, iill lnot Sion wa s icasclctd occ U itd 'ia te~ % . Texas, 339 U.S. 707 (1950); change ownership fiel a iis'ill Ofittia ii St air ri i Id.'h. .ii 160 Un',ited .Statces N. Louisiana, 339 u~S, 699)(1950); United States 11. (emnphasis addeil). California. 332 UIS. 19) (1917. 38. For a brief discussion icf (:alifcciiiat's ciiictsuiul art ilr ialeto recioci 2 1, Fur a lirief disc tissioci icf these grants of tidelands, see ''Title to rule, see Shcore iccd liert /t, V'cl. 19, ,No. 2, Apji I 1 98 1, Ii. 22. Landis Withinl dici Cicastal Zone," supra. For more detailed dis- 39. 274 Md. 1, 322 A. 2d ta634). c fissiocns. steeChiesapeake Bay, stipra note [.at 90-94; Note,supra 40. Id. at 4, 332 A. 2d act fi32. ciiite 19, 31) Mci. L. Rev. at 2412-213, 244-247, 259-260. 41. ,Id. at IS, 332 A. 2ii at 638. Flii r'e en'l 1962 stil tt iiicitit'Iacii 25. lfirscliv.lDep'tof ,\'attral Resouirces, 288NMd. 95,98-99, 416A.2d 50-m~ph. winds Sttid III- tif) I15-ot wae.It icccciltceci motst Aif 10, 12 (1980); (:a'ote N. Canirell, 279 Md. 392, 396, 369 A.2d 56, 58 Fenwick Islatt. ilci wihi it ),(,tact (it, is, lot ccitt. I csiswie'l (1977); Vact Rtuvtnbeke v. Patapscolndus. Park, 261 Md. 470,475, estimated at 57 icimcc.Juttv tpr c tile( 1-.3 1J I'Mci. f. Foirtlilt 276 A. 2d 61, 61 I(197 1). at 123. Seecalsoc Retcu IXs''cciitcs Nit/Jo n(cci 12, 5 1'. ]filt. L. 26, Id. at 183, 276 A. 2d at 68. Rev. at 333-356. 27. %Id. Nat. Res. Cdc ,leAu i. � 9-lt1(in) (1983), ''Private wetlands'' Iii a deccisi tit itrnclvincg ti 1 tilic caticl cc o ffetra.ts cOil ,As al itaic are dt'ficcetd ili tire Wetlacids Act as ' anv land not considered 'State Islantd, downs' oacicit fron ciiOc't :al Uis. fto im fui ccsionc ill cit tic ala wcet ancd' buordc'rinrg tin or I yintg beneath tidal wvaters, wsh ich is seashore, thie 1 S. i strict( tCot tri ol %ij I s,c oldcci sa icl iliacti [is I 962 subject to) regular icr periurlic tidal action acid supports aquatic storml fciodt'd ''[[]iii' cccrlii' c castAal reas ccf Nlatrvylid ,cdccci la'-t grccwstt.'' Id. � 9-10)1(j) (1983). wa re, as well as p ar is cc Vl ug icc i a tcil Ne sr[crsc-s . ... 1cm sertira 28. ''Regularcir pciriotlic tidal action'' is defined in the Wetlands Act days. . .' anid iliac cite ''stotint %i if a s,(i'v''is cr-it icI is lik(is icc as ''cite rise a ccii fall ccf the sea produced by the attraction of the occur cci lv tws'ii e a cc-ct iire. bcc c [thcatJ ( clitcr s'%VI'C' sic111 cc tic SUn acid icicion UtiinflrceC.Ced by wind or any other circum- likely to occur with tutu, it ,i'trfelicis''-cctcuceIsccc siice' d� 9-1 01) k) ( 1983). Sintilar<definiitionisarecontainied in Contdemcnation CasNes ()pcritccct.\',t. r ft'iteil s1Ictic' s. 222J. I crcs ordersescablishitig the latitfw.artl boundaries of wetlands in vani- of Land)l, 32-1 F. Sicilc. 1170), 117 1 )1). Mcil. I 971 otis Tecctcis fli' dcrtrs were issued by the state's secretary of 42. 274 Md. at 15, 3:12 A. 2td at 638. atatural resources cicder cite Wetlands Act. -13. Ibjid. 2,9. In a 1980 cast' i cusiriticig flce Wetlands Act, the Maryland Court 44. 1975 Md. Laws cI . 91: iccclified'tic Mcd. Nit. Re's. Codec An.tt. of Appieals bcrielly illutdicd iii tue lower ciourt's standard for 8-I 101, 8-i103.1 (1983). 'This ac t is .Ii cctiptltivic't cclMa Nti ltttl's deter cciii icc thle boiui itar y. bitt (l id not address the question in Coastal Maniageciceitit ti'gaic ci. NI (:p Al Ictp ra tIcI(c((. , it tII'I2 any(detail. Hilrsch s- lDep't of ,atnral Resocurces, sctpra, 288 Md. 144, 162, 384. at 118-119 n. tO. -116 A. 2d1at 22 cif 0. ''fn an attempt to identify 45, Recent Develiopnents, utipric mite 12, 5 1'. Ikili1. I,. Res . at 3710 the meati high water hie,... thetstate's] Department [of NaturalI (fcotnotes omtitted), Resources] Jintcrodlutied testiimini y [at the Hirsch case trial] regard- Erosiconi is a serciiois liikicht'ccccNitv1 cci , tic toilt alt ccc thecli tug vegecacicii, tidal actists'.aitd soilssacciplesat thsite, as wellAtlanitic Ocaci Iccast actidl cc inicic (Ctesap~cc'kc Bits . %%'hil Ic' crccc as taeti I c it itsof th ccci cc cr cc the a cidunderthe ill [lacedicc iiaad s trrctutiekiae ii fice t t'si l-cc isit ticti N.A.?)iicc'ttccitti iccIili wet Iancdsl~ byef ae;' e .''c i 1ctr oiteesfoun lcrt sticproit-ci cite lit cc ivto()c 1iicc 1is. c'.IaryltiiCcc i) the slate htadi finit Iti (cc c ry its liiirien ofi proof because it had M a n cagetmenitt l'rcgric lot ii c acctt let irtics Ilw~i. 'i i cisic Ihv ti' "-xcct i'stbliltel cc'iiccr tii'xac ctntotr~scclthesit no th dereeto ocinittititity's ''Ilost iccip irtaict Iticili-lcc, lcci gi li la iii"d schicIc tile sccil c cililpai liid." Ret'i.'nt D~e( isiiitts.supra icote 8, 11 sc'vt'rescirttiscc 1977acid 1978 .. it'tia cc cIn- Ad) 11c'',,iit.'' Nid. L. Re'. at 13-5 tittit- iiitd tihssioiicl.MCNIP, itipric ncii [,I, at I steals,, cc. ,cc 15). Ilii' e dcci en Accccc d 30. (dratcd v. lhghes, I C. & . 219 (Mci. 1829). Thlis case intivoscil saai': ''Althliighli ccciii it ci lii' [( .hosatlw',kc'.1KI Hi 's lctl"itt 11.is cihi. light cf ill clmitcral owciicr cicider a 1715 statute tic miake c'rodiiiig at at slccis ciii', applclcttiliittc I 10Int) tlic of ci in' Icicig ~~~~~~itipts'tici ficici ccl his land acidi thlereby toc actluire title tic losc at filt' ltact ii ficci fti'i cor iallfc it' I ccc " icr '' h. 8: ccc' it cci cc1. tile incicirmcdvc laud1. 153. Aiticiliti' t(ioltr,( c chge, cist'miiiitc'.11t cittis ,1V cicliti's: ''Sillt 31. 1862 MdI. Laws iii. 129, as cthroit'le iii Nrcie, spra nice I9, :1( Md. XLI Nrs'l ldiit. as~ fccccdiiic'ii sccc I 1.5 silti.iic' cicliteic of ci Ic~s'llNn L. Risc. at 2-IS (etnrcpiasis .iddii'd); this statitte was focrcterly (ccli- becii Icist to ci Ih iv a.'' (Jichitfcp'ckc' Ba'. c,) ctftr cc c', I t 2)11. lied atl Mit. Ann Coi'( xi a rtc3, 51 ~' 15 Fire scat cite %%,is reat'I ed icy f rue scati'' sfcd'c ri alihiprcivc(I i'astial piogiacilt calls tccr giv ilt, the Wettanids Ati Icfl 1970. severe ericsiin cit as clcV'i.I~ MVcIlcticit c.g. idciiiific attici as 32. Niote, s upra clite 19, 350 \lIl L. Rev, atl 2 17 (Ic c cic ccicti tianet). ''State Cricial IAlv c as sic ictcllt' ft rli pi'st'r ,i tic li iii, itl sc ccii'i. A list," 33, Ibid. cctsraict' MNI( ll, cu/ilir [ticic I, ,ic :9(t, :it)21-3)3; si' lo c. 3 1. 1970 hd. Laiws A i. 2 11: this staritit -i' ws ficriccirlN dicciiit'ti ,cc Mdc. ;at 27, 153-l1i2. Atti. GcIi. rirt. 66i (:, � 718 ct seq. (Sitppl. 1982), enic IN cflcw -16. IFir a briref idisicussioni ccl sotici' (.ttiflcciiii littilit it u,, c ,isi', acidifiedlat Mdt. Nat. Ri's. (:vl'Atc -41it meet. (1983). hit.ttititcg-.'ticrk~s-v Ihtt',i a d219 a.Rcr it 191 35. T~he Wetlatids Act Icecanica'tIfettive uItc 1, NM7. A le'gal ccciii- P'. 2d1 :1711 197 1), sc-i' thore toii) Bc, h. Vctl. 19 . Nit. 2, .Apuifl 198 1, nentrator states that tliis iniw ac~t '',elirifie ilcte lawy liv remocvitng lp.~ 22-231. many doubts over tire validity oIf fidec cc lanid recl ainted' foci n -17. Foir , bielc'f dims cussiccc (l scomite Nc'wc Ivcrit'5 pitli ti rust c HILSc'. a SHORE AND BEACH tiit( I ticcI it g b oyo itz / of Ne-pt Peic- City s. Itorou Its iif A vto I-by t-f Id , I cc Io(IIlit it c ticdes i grcc-d Iot rest I ri IIISe of it ci i% -owne III I I a( It Sea. 6i I N. 296. 29-1 A.2d 47 (1972), set- Shcore and Be-a( h, V'ol..50, lot Ac rt-sidt"Ils. Fcct a brief disc utssion (of (r- N: . CIIN of ILongt, No. 2, April 11983. . II. H. -eae/t. 69 Nit%(, 2d 763, 3301 N.YS. 2d 495 (Supl. (:i. Nccsscco 48, oi-n riit (cssoxnio hslgldc ule hc a ae t AcNt 1972;., alt 'd, 45 App. D~is- 2d 8-I1 .358 NY.S. 241 9577 (2d crittiji aspiccis cl ancietnnt Romanc Itits antd eccolsed atl Eniglisht Dr-pt 'l h st-t- S/hmrand Beadh. Vol. 5,No. . *jtcl 1983. p. 1 cIct ommout, Iaw stc S/htc i anid Brac /t, V lc 4i 14, Noc-. 4(O )ticbei I1980. 1 hI dok ftrine nil rus tor w a~cs enitilircd bN- it- i 0 itego n S"IM r-iti -1 1). A I Iit ItI- I V cI I lic 1 2 Lc . i - It gtIaittIcIl tx it- I I(Iitd aIdI watItI-I SI Ic I1c bcIc h i Ic cit a lr ie f d isc us si (Ion of S I I eIex re-l. Thto rtt Ioc2e I ha . 25 1 lcit'lioetct 1pot 11 Ofcts c Ihctsc [IciciISIeciS alt( qtCcte-d ilt Dept I Itch 1982. p) I . I16- 17. 194- 20. T1 te - lo ridaIi Stap )retti- CotItII a I cIc-(I A'a I d ce Ic/ frt, cC 7 It r 5-, f feaie Ci id 1, 7 .c e 2 7 Mtl NL . at 1(- I I . 33 2 I ctistom itt)c it nui ted fashioti Feir a brief di%( stussion ot f Coll Nvo A.2d at 636i. )ayci toa lBrach v. Torna-Ramia. IInc.. 29-1 Stt. 2d 75 (FI~c. 1971). sit 5 0. C/c-c tra Ifcc-a k lf 13aI. stIe Ip Ie dicIIc tic I , atv 9 2. Stc a( tI% Isti kerpci lcicc I ci %. ittl. I f S l I tir- ait d lBe-a /i , Veil. 4 9 N O. 2, J tt I . 1 981I . I I -Iti. 1tjib. WIih'ncs te %pile, 2til Nlil. at4--14-5 27tc A. 2(1 at 61. 66. p'c of`Nat oral ResotI~r~e-e. 0(en it Cit),.c ce/ra.-27-1 %it Iat 8- 14. 5 I. Meli. Citsi.. Dtlac ciaticci ocl Rights. cili. 5. 332 A. 2d at 635-638. 2. Sit. r.Lf. /c lt. ci Pte I. Wok % tns. La roeetr (t nCor.. 262 NlcI. 24,.47. 277 67. Id. cci 13 3.332 A. 2(1 at 637. A. 2d1 .127. 15S ( 1971 ); Kerpe-Icce~ic %. Wt. ofI lite/-. Ilorkc. ste/-ca. 261 68. let. cci 22. 332 A. 2t1 at 1i12 (Eldridgc, J., dissenittiti NicI. cci 41. F, 17t A. 2td at ilI. eye7. detcte-d. 4011 U.S. 858. 6)1. III. atl 21-2-1, 332 A. 2d at 64 1-6-13 (Eldritdge. 1.. dissc-ntitcg) 53. JaticiII.), . .ilpra trcicl 15,3 N I McI. L. Ictoltalt at 13 1. 'hI Id asscttioic 711. MICAI'. stupra ttote I. at 3-6, 13-3.1 12--I16. ii 1975). siot]ctl ccpjcc-cc it, Icea iccr-tceo iroteom s. Kennrdiv. stupra. 5 11. 9- .. a ifter tcc- 0~ean Cclv de-tisioci, Miarylatid'S IVlegislctici passid tili- I 95. et i ciitggr t cf5 ci-cc--ic a nt~ c Lord Hafi ctiorictr leat h Erosion Con trol District At-t. 1975 NiJci Laiws th.9ictci atnd his Iccits antd stcc c esoIts, sctbjri-t ip thet uittibi rcgltts ccf lied at idAn. od 8-1 .-I0.1(1983). Although this fiscitg acd casigcicn. ;- lt ttttetin e-tin-iduc-c- itwasalstlgislation "prohibits construction atisivil1 onl mnchc of Ot edi ili 1821 rthat the- New .1is-vsc Supt-crem- Glint hcandid down its O m t's shore," a student commlentator has arguced that tice- ac-i is dec isicci Iit Arno/ld v. Afut d,td, 6) N. J . L. I (Still. Gt. 1821), inadequatc- to protect the public 's rigict ifc use thev cusvs beacheis. frellpicrtInt citt-d as the first Amc'rccatccasearticecilating the putblic Recet-n Dev-elopmentis, supna note- 12,. 5 19. Halt. L. Riev. at 350. trust dccctilii. 37 1. i-cs: j nnes.supya note- IS. 3 1'. Miel. 1.: Forum at 1 33. An even niore 7 1. Se-c "Legal Effects of Physical Changvt-sii tice- Shict-litte' undc-t rv~~ijiciivr v ivwO tiap ctbhiyo i pechli( trust doct riice- in - 'lvcierncutcatiion of Tidal Becuidaries." stuir~a. Mar% iccd is st-1 itra i it Ittc 1971)sc0 li -rtti critic1rti: - Whiiic- 72. flee n/-c Is/anrd Alarina t. Cave Uourn(ie v c , 286 Md.I 30:1. 3 5HO I 6. tIIt- pcxi iiii trust qclusiot-s tc has bce-i ta iwsdt in Nlanrxlactd, Ilie- Maltry- 407 A. 2d1 738. 715 0I979): Wir ks. 5 . Iltwatell e, -10NMel. A1ptp. 135, 136, Lin cici Ccci i Ap~p-ak Isits notic as yeti sactioned ticc its va lid ity.'' 388 A-\. 2cd 12f), 1251 (Mdi. (:It Sp. cApp 1978). N tic, .cutpia nic ti-I9, 3ft N-Id. L. Ri's. cit 2621 (lcetnotietc crnnit ic-c). 73. Mel. Ncc . Re-s. Code Ann. � 9-2(11)1983) (c'tnphasi s added ) .55. 1k/ct of Natcure-l I?r'.otene e-.% %. Ocrat- Call, Atcpra. 274 Md. at 5-6, 7- 1. W~. of Public W~orks %.Lanoar Corp.,.mp/oae 262 Md. ai 51, 277 A. 332Q A, 2d ;ii 633-63-1. 2c1 at -139. The previouis statecor; law ocriginatced in aic 1862 act-i 5 6. Id. at 9-I1I. 3322 A. 2d aii 636-6.8. whicit Ilead statewide applicability untde-r that a(-i. it was ptoi- 57. 1 hit- aa ic-cii que-st ion - lying heiwwi-c-ti ihic incan hiiigh-water li ice- vidled Icct the- upland owsner hadif - -h lt- xt I usivs- rig hi of ma kitig acitd thet dtinc- (cit v-cgc-tct ittn)line was ownied bN a devecloper who improvemnents into the waites Iin front cif his said Iand" and that planncede itc buil d a four-story onkdornitiunic. For a further dis- 'sucicimprovements. .. shall pccss lo the( suecessise owners of the cussiect of lilti- cccse and the parties' contentions, see "Piubiuhi land to wischi they are attaCc tled.'' 18ti2 M~d. Laws clh. 1219. St-c Access Rightis," iefra. discccssion of tilic- 1862 act in N tct, suprct note 19, 30 Md. L. Re-s. .S. le)e-'t of Natural Resmctrr cs %.O( Pail C:ity, siupra, 274 MdI. at 3, at 2-15, 249-250. Twoc years befocre- the 1862 law was enacted, tIce' 332 A. 2d at 632. General Assembly iii cife-ct rccepealed a 174.5 act, linmitled to Haiti- 59. Tite state's (e eniertien wccst iccsed iii pcint on the(- reservationi in more-, that had coinferred on upland Otwneers the- right to creel- Article X'clo ccldcc crigiticl Clcartc' cif Mary land. As quoue-d b% tihe witarses and octhvt irmpnovenmt'tcts acid] Iic acqutire ftit icc the (ectiri, this prois- ion vc-srs-ed toin th crowic, ''and to all tiltc- suit- titidieriving latntllby cing sci.Id. at 24-1-245.. &c-al.esBdi.cnj Pteblte jt-ctsetf oeti kitcgcitmsof Eciglatid and Irelatid... --h/e- privilege-of W ~ orks v-. Larotar Corp., stupra, 262 Md. at 37, 277 A. 2d ait ,sa/hegandrycrgfisc oret/tec/eon-.s. andfonthtatc-aid.... to .( 432--133. The 1745 law "wsas obviocusly passed to accommodate build/ut.s arid cabenls -f,. ' ofNtea esuresv r-r thet giciwing pains oif a burgeorcing colony - ns-ironimenial Cety, mepra, 274 Md. at 10-lI1, 332 A. 2d1 at 636 (empheisis by thue factors and ('cologie-al balanci's we-re- not ye- ilthe cone-crn ecl tilt iectiti). peopecl- nif this newA land, Their concern was tilc- bccilding of a 60. Id. atl I1. '332 A. 2ti at 6.37 (footnote ocmitte-d). buestlitig pecrt oil the eastern seabecard toc sip;ort we-siwand 61. Thel( coici tcited cc translcitiocte of Justiniaci's leestittetes staticig, e-xlattsitii of pcoputlationt and c ommerlc. ' Ibid. aicctig ccthic't ticicig, that bout the sea anti tilc- seashore- we-re 75. H-arboi Island Marina %. Caltvert Count)-, ,utpna,286 Med. at 322. ccmmo me to icc n kicii id anid that thet- shit c c culci lii- uscel hy aic', -107 A. 2d at 749. pite~On foct dri)Ing ne-is. Id. at 11-12 it. 8, 332 A. 2d at 637 II. 8. 76. NJti Attic. Codei- alt, 78A. � I (aid) (Stilcp. 1982t. 1,eass atc- 62. Id. ci 13. 332 A. 2d at 637. vxe-ft Lied Icy t Ice stac te Bcccid cIcf Tipei(ili Willi Ls, (lai ice- It itsc-If cci in fi3. Ii I a I' ? Nr-.s. v. Bo rl-o ut oie-f Deal , 78 N.J. I 7-I - 179. 393 A. 2d 57 1 I l cicj tin CI icic s-I I t I aut tlot IIc-cI sitaIl - baIcdccc tel, I-ccitt Ii c~ ssc ci, deI ccc r I L m-i Ita 573 I 1978), t ihv New Jersey cc ceri h eld t hit lthe doctrine ''requLiircs I l l ci ccgi it; /el. 4 IS) i)) (SitIpp~. 198,2). Thce Bocar d ofi icbe (~ Wc ctks ica t tic c- tit tci~i iiall y ciwnied upllanide santd area adjacent tc tle-ti nii s acppcctc c-c- -scry suicI Icva seetc (ei tt-cs-cc I Of it ieaW.- eId. � 8 (SuLI tI)cJ. ii dccl w5aiters musts Icc ope ii tc all edt c-quall tennis cind withoeett I 982;. piet-Icncie c-,' fcmrbiddling dliscrimcinationi agccitcs coicre-sidents cif 77. NJcI. Nat. Re's. Codelt Anti. 9- 1(11 e-t seq. (I1983) (formerly codified illc clcmmtttii . The- e eiti e-xpre-ssly limitedc its opinionctoc at MI. Ann. Crdideatt.ti6(:,�~718 Ct.eq/.). tinde-rithisaci -the- ernt I1itIIji4iciacll~ cwnc-d opic-t be-ac-lits. Ibid , . . . 'wetlands' itteIiclde- fully suibme'rge-d land-it is riot limited to 6-1. Dc-pt/ ofi Natural Iiecouteree.c v. Cleant City, ,supnia, 274 Md. 1, 332 nmarslts and thce like-." Notec,.mopna nocte 19, 30 Md. L. Rev~ai 252. A. 2d1 630. 78. Nid. Nat. Rc's. (ccie- Anti. � 9-101 (in) (1983). 65~. Id. cit 8-141, 332 A. 2cd at 635-638. 79. Id. � 9-1 01 (j) (I1983). Tite It-gacl Iih-ory (if incp/ieed dedication. itt simn'whtai diffi-relic 80. Id. � 9-202(ca) ( 1981). Thce Retard of Pciblic Works is charged with appcl-cli at icctt , hiccs ccc ite hui ied by (-'alIifeirniac a iid Te-xas coecris cit dc-cidinig " -if issitatic- of thet- lie nse- is Iiit Ilic- be-si initcres t of thic- bech-ici ale c-ss eases ito fcvor tict puclclif ecser pris-ate liicccral owite s-r. Stakec, ceckitg iratcc ac-c ecnit the- v-arying ecoloigical, ececneitic . F-ec cc briecf li sc cc ssiccr of tIcc- (.Ili feci ilia Suprene-- (hut r's de-cisiconc dc-s-l opine-t it I re-c- reat icitalI anI ac-sIct-ivii valut-s c-ac-i appi icca- iit (;,on v-. C:It fv f Sancto Crit:aaid IDietz v-. Aireg, 2 CAcl 3d 29, 465 tion Itre-sulits." Ii. � 9-202(i )(I) f(1983). p' 2cd Si. 84 ('IccI. Rcim. I162 (1970). se-c S/hore and Be-ac/h, Veil. 49. 81. Id. � 9-301 (1983). Ntc. 2. April 198 1. pc, 23. Feir a Iit ic-f ciscussicci of tict- Texas Cectirt 82. Id. �9-302 (1983). of (:s- I Apc ctls ciopittimo ilt Seawaye) Co. s. .ttctrprty Geniernal. 37!) 83. Id. 9-303 (1983). Amoing site It lawful cisc-s are the- "It-Im-c'-is- oif S. Wcs. 2ci 923 (Tux - (;I%,. A lil. - I-Icciseion 196-I '-tien ref 'd nr.)-st-c ri I ctcr iciriglils Io cimpttov-c Icc nldii ithounding cci navtigablcec wac er, if) s/cte h-r-a ree Ije-ar/-c Votc. -1). Nit -1. 0c ccclbc- 198 1 II. 28. p r e-serve a~ccss icc tiic- ncavigablec wlt- scii cci I-coicit-c tiltcc shoce-r-agtciiist Aui ex/tress trtte'it it) ~e-du ate, as distingtuishet-d froctm antltllit c-lrecin" aicd "Ji]elccittcniaii of cilast falad Oiwned- Icy, it naiccial deic-luaticcn, is as fecicc Icy itc Nisw Yoerk I cricit iii iccelraing cc Iticctcc c- p e crsont antI lcst jatitti Jcan. I - 19721 cleritig his Ownecrshipt o-f tlt JANUARY 1984 9 81. lan by erositt or avuIIS~tl....' libid. 303, 107 A. 2d 738. 851 d �936 91. Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann.,� 9-)101 elsec/. (1983) (formerly codified 8.1981 Md. La-ws (h. 102; tiadified atNd. Nat. Res. Code Ann � at .'d. Ann. CAode art. 66C . 718 et seq.). 9-501(e) (1983). 86 Ff~~~~~~~~~rsch ~~~~~~92. Md. Ann. Code �.� 8-1101, 8 I I0a I (I1)83). 86 d 10.sc v. IDep 't of Natural Resouri es, .suPra. 288 Md. 95,4116 A. 93. Under the -networking- apprna h. Maryland ustabl isited its 87 1eetDcso0..ur oe8 1IM. .Rv 318 4 Coastal Management Programn h~ linking together existittg 87. ecen Detisios, mra nte 8 .11Md. . Re. at137-38, 40-legi,,lative programs instead ti byera(tOng a otretsi new HI. 11(owever, thie owner 'appanently received a warning [from statute. NICMP, supra note I. at -118, 136. Ilitwvser several new the state], before ordtutrittg the titne wetlands were being filled, to laws were passed and somt. existing statutes were-T amended fol - the effect that sorb filling wouild lie in violation of wetlands lowing the coastal pt(Jgrati's a pprov a]. regulations." Id. at 1,11. 94. Mcf. Nat. Res. CodeAiin. � 1-102( l(1) ([983i. MCMP-sopra note 88. Id. at 137. 1,15. 1, at 42-43. 378. Numerous otlter state agettcies attd Iotnal 89. P'otomac Sand & r (avel Co. v. Governor of .larylantd, 266 Md. governmetmtal ejtjtitiS are actie in CarNivingottt the pl~rgratll. Id. 358.293 A. 2(1241 (1972). FlieCourttof Appeals ruled that the law at 46-57. 386-397. in addition, the Coastal Resotmres Ad% isory was a valid exercise of the( police ptower to preserve exhaustible cotnmiittee represents local governmental prog-rartn pri~pattts, natural resources. Id. at 371, 293 A. 2(d at 2-18. citizens and '.arioujs interest groups. Id. at -58-60. 368-369. 90. Ilarbor Idsatd Manitla, Inc. V. Caluert Counly, .supra. 286 Md. 10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHORE AND REACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XV: The South Carolina Approach BY PETER H. F. GRABER Attorney (it Law San I I raplcilsoo, California IT WAS FXACTrLY 100 YEARS AGO that the.South C~aro- Lands within the coastal zone may be legally t. lassi- lina Supreme Court commnented that the state's fled ats uplands, tidelands and Submerged lands.1 wvidespreaidtidelanidszare~aslhadlbeen genierallvy writ- ten Off as ''utterly Worth less . .. property" on ly a few decades earlier.' T[hat c~otment refle( ed widely held A. Uplands perceptions during the lengthy rice-plantauion era. Tojday'. the lainds and waters within South Carolina's Private parties own Most uplands adjoining South coastal zone are highly prized for many dIiverse uses, Carolina's coastal waters. 12 Flowever, the state exercises including such resort and residential projects as that regulatory control over private parties who wish to being developed oil Kiawahi Island (Fig. I) near historic 'flrmvdegranoeecanstute)l 1 Charleston. in anyv way alter any critical area'' withlin tilth- coastalI The Palmetto State, ''blessed With vast ut1ISpoiled Lone.'13 natural] areas'' because of its long p~asto)ral plantation era and its relatively slow coastal industrial develop- ment,2 boasts 26 percent of the unirecla'imed tidelands B. Tidelands acreage remiaining along the AtlIan tic: O'eani, more than any other East Coast stated Perhaps this is why Tidelands in South Carol ina'II have been known by South Carolina was the last state oil that coast to enact a many names: salt marsh, tidall mharsh, esitrarine land, wet lands protectionI law.' foreshore, intertaidal zone'5 andl, pehp most p~ersist- Thie South Carolina Coastal Management Program, ently, "marshlands."''' based on thle state's 1977 Coastal Zotie Managemrent Tieadowrhpitlsngnrlaybst- Act,' articu-lates ambitious goals and ob'ectives for this inarried as follows: [lhe stater Is le-gal ly rsme valuable tone, which intclutdes a 1,211-mile sho re-Iifle.6 own all ungranted t idelands~ iii South (Caroditilla, Ini That program seeks "to lbalance the needs created by~ this presumption may be relutted. Private parties rinaI burgeoning populations and concomitant develop- pirov~e their claimis by showving uinbrokeni chains ol titles ment against those for preservation of th niomn.'~ originating in (olonlial or sia te graillis hfam. c'olltai ii express laigtiage or otlher evidenec spec ifically ianii - festing the Sovereign's intent to coilvey lands down to TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN thle low-water inark.'11 THE COASTAL ZONE However, this may be too simplistic a Summary of anl extremely complex sittiatioii. As a knowledgeable law-., South (Carolina'scoastal zone encompasses ''all coast- ver in the state's attorney getieral's Office succinctly al waters and submerged lands seaward to the State's wrote in 1982: jurisdctiona I unis antiall lnds atd wates in [igh j... SouthiI Caroliiia tidt-ela nti law is sitill %clv ][ii ii I jurisdictic'llii s ndl l..''[hnd:.stan watr un [i g t Ilwljii a sIdt( of I lux and nill c11ill Wtaint',ilolal U(iiStal COtiti6CS Tihe ~~a Conol Whdichuia administers the state's coastal ianaagement pre gram Ikl nIteiui' o ,llcsii rbei pn I tdte iiet' fewv %ci sot initial ion Ilay pro~ ide a ''hastdetermined th llrxmt r)rpi xetof tlmhi ]hol o rme h'iiiitk t,111iew(Irk Ill %hit il al toll- its jurisdiction ..te.ltclac xnnayI tinegen - ridtnoeae' eralIIy correspotids to that po' hnt in the ccoiastal Zile Thle state's Coastal Z/one Mlanageivncit Act it 1977 where vegetation chatiges from predomuittatly brack- Irm(Vidcl thatl priviifte tide-landIs klairanIMs ca 1 sue thet ish to predominantly frvsh."10 ~ ~ ~slate to establish tileir li tl' to or inferc'st I it( Ifc lanids,"' ....... .. ~but the impact of [his provisioni is still ill doubt). 4,: ., i i',-W I ..... .. "''u-''J, '', "I To appreci ate file comlplexity of tile siute's [tidelands ~~ 'I~~~~~!*I'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Im .,I "'7 ' 5h'""' ownership p~tIZle-wi.-'li(I illvolves mlore thanl tist tilt,' ....., t,,,iea~, .~ ...... ..., *-I,',dx,.........' ''I''''''~'"'' conllusiig selinatlic(t l cikglliir alluded to al)o'e-suiiit 'j,-,-'a 1,,-r ,,"'a ~ ,,- M, I)F, "? th,',' ., historical background is helpful. ForctI'etim(e 1',, (,W-, 14"'',.'r,,v~rr ~,frSa,, I ,,I-r,,a 'I '. , , - South Carolina's coastal chmronotlogy callt be( divided (,r,,Srr~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~M 15.,I,,, ,,,r .'n/i;ni i, ra~ noseveral stages: (1)1 hie rice-growing era (t irc a 1700- 18 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHORE AND BEACH =s: - ~- tncii e di vct si f ied usagc.3" private ownership.", R - was South Colina's first great plantation Then, in 1928, the landmark Cape Roman d.ci-.., _ IFV | n a \s i-.-.1, crFig; I Agneral phl flourished ooking southwerd of Kiwdeh Island, South Cnrolt ina, asion rea being developed dos n. plans one legal authority said: esidenthat portion wtc th mmulev f salinity was too higrph 22 byth case did not directlesy involve the Statend Co) Ric plantation ); ( in the coastal lowil ands poriginated ass e in dipt a (language unneestains tor he most sweeping ((during the olonys atly das. The lan ds within(3) the 20t statementurs, with thatvorof the state as empoveru ttered byto grant tidelads intouth slota's present boundaris v adinisterd until 1712 arolina Supreme Co urt in a tidelands case.wne p 2 Rite wlas Sfoli dtl scpica'n s first l the Ae- plaintai ff clhe, in 198 the lt had a valid chRomai�n of title, basedeci- cr(; i geneall by foli Englishein crown, through the oi sevn sovereign gras h ande d n to 34,000 acres onf legal aulority said that orli(ol.2:1 T' hese l of sloniali authorities higranted grounds;Allogh th e case dind not diratl y involeght to use State e si(e nlaltis ol th stal low ountr l and s o priginae l aprs ; grounds undera state i]oy ster lease. Themcourt, declarping afduring the Roluony's ealy dys Te lands ithin the staemesd and exerised that great specificity wasrequi ruttere d by a private ainaSouthnt state'spese tliaieadingised til 1712 (aroina Suprove the Courtate's intent to convey t idel an ds case, The by tAe lord -n'l) riet]o South Caroli na case intil the Americe- fouplainl laimed th at the plaintiff's ev vaidence was not sufficient ly royagovrns Ts'oloialatthoritis p"grasented gra question ofs; thitle defendant alleged a right theo use theifi32 Statsie at low ( ty land t private intl)ersoes; gron(ls nder a state oystrongly I Ceasein, the court ruled, amodeclng other assetted tihal the statutesof the era, as well as thegrants things, that the use of the word "marsh" in a sovereign andi a Iew p)rivate cases, are abundant with evidence thiat grant did ?ioi ref'lect the state's sl)ecifi( intent to convey tidelands wete routinely granted, taxed, and, where tidelands because "Iw]Ilile a marsh is land usually wet possible, used for agriculture.'"25 and soft and commonly covered wholly or partly with 'iThe 1885 Pinckney case26 involved one of the first water and is olften referred to as a swamp, it is also great disputes over tidelands between the state and pri- known as a meadow which remains green during the vate claimants. The case, which arose after the dis( ov- dry seasons."3 cry '"that phosphatic rock, useful ais fertilizer, could b F The 1968 Lane case"4 seemed to establish that the mined in the vicinity of South Carolina's tidelands," crown and the(' state could grant tidelands to private involved grants dating ba(k to 1787.27 The court held partties. But the precedenitial value of the decision may that the stat(e owned these plhosl)haite- i(ci tidelandIs."i be dublious; as a state attorney noted, the state had Between 1887 and 15127 no cases (on(ric ing phoos- "' lih(tively (onceded that the alea in question con- phates in tidal-fllowed lands at ose ietween thIe siatle antd sis t(d on(ly of tidelahtis and thatl it was in fart granted by lprivat(' interests ifn whi-h iS tIe (out , s)pe( iiically dis- tlie (:Clown in 1773.t.'3 cussed the title issue. l loweve l, thilatl ela's (asts (it) APRIL 1984 19 C. Submerged Lands It is inlteresting tI( Spe( ulate about tile possibility thlat the (ourtI s ltirtllia(ly miight (onstrue thiS plovi- 'hile 1913 Sul)illtergedl I.antls .\tl" (Ot'til'ritil South stion ias all ;adoltio(n by South Carolinia's legislature (iarolina's lille to stibncrged landts withini 3 geogl'a- of tile tIUillslal (Califollia artifi(ial a(creiot i ruile. phical miles of tile (coast. A 1975 'nited States Urnder that rule, lite state (.or its public tidelands Siul)relne Counrt detisiont rejectedl the (Ilatinl by this grantee, e.g., it coastal Mnnicipality), ias owner in and other A\tlauitic Coast states to "hl'lminiOIl alind trust of tile tidelads, a(luires title to all artificially control" overl the z,)ne seawlard of thle 3-lnile lint it. ' ac(reted lands.'i In mtost states, when a private upland owner is not DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES directly responsible for the artificial condlition that causes the shoreline to move seaward, he becomles the A. Upland/Tideland Boundary owner of the newly created land.i' This general prop- osition is qualified in many jurisdictions,'9 inludling Except whe-e alltting parcels of tidtla;lds are Il i- South Carolina,e5 to preclude a private plrty from vately oxnvield, the wavterward proplerty bonldlclary f acquiritng title to new land that he himself creates by South Carolina's coastal uplantds is, in general, the filling tidal waters.s5 It remains to be seen if this pro- mean htigh-water nlark. 9 However, the state's appel- vision will be interpreted so as to pass title to all arti- late courts [aetve not fullyv explainled the malnner in ficially accretef land to the state wgindtlcs of which the littoiral boundary should be located on the whether the upland owner was solely resp)onsible for ground. For example, in the 1885 Pinckney case, the its creation.52 Supreme Court chlarac-terized the highl-vater mark as Like many other coastal states, South (alolilla "that line (UwINatever it rn1may ie).''9 Atide ih t'le 1928 faces erosion problems. T'he stale's (coasilsIl ll;nage- Cape Romain"' decision, the court sillply said that ment law mandates the Coastal Counllil tto aIdtldes "the high- water mark' is the boundary of a tidal these prollemnsi3 A prillt il )jectixe of the tnlmncil's navigal)le streaml, and ionly briefly touchled on the program is to develop and ilnstittute "a n(ollltileheilsive mneatlitig of thlat legal terml.u beach erosion policy that identifies (liti(al erosionl Recent legislation does employ the technically pre- areas, evaluates the long-term costs ald bellefits of cise phrase "mean high-water mark" (line), implying erosion control techniques, secks to mniniize the the use of a tidal datum as the elevation of high effects on natural svste ins (both1 liologicl all piysi- water. See, e.g., the definition of "coastal waters" in cal), and avoids damll;ges to life anld lropcr . the South Carolina Coastal Zone Managementt Act of The state's published managemenit program specif- 1977.2 ically identifies "liglhly erodinIg" beach areas, i.e., those with short-term changes of more than 5 meters annually.s. In addition, tile program devotes 10 pages B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location to a detailed disetission of the council's erosiln (on-- of the Shoreline trol program, which recognizes the importance of both structural methods and nonstructural ap- Traditionally, South Carolina law has recognized proaches, such its artificial beach nourishmiltent.5i that the legal boundary between private ul)latls an Significantly, use of the various Methods is linked adjoining sovereign tidal-flowed lanids is subject to in the state's tpublished p)rogram to their effect on fluctuation as a result of accretion and erosion, i.e., public beach and shoreline access.'; For exatlple, tile gradual, inmperceptible physical changes.43 .IThis is documrent provides that "[p]ltlic funds (all only be consistent with the usual commonl-law rule." expended for beach or shore erosion control in areas, However, a provision in the state's coastal mlal- communities or otn barrier islaiids to whic h tile pui)- agement law purports to alter that rule with respect lic has full and complete access."58 to ownership of accreted land. It empowers tile Coast- al Council to "issue permits for erosion control struc- tures" but adds several provisos: "... Prolvied. however, tihat no property rebuilt or SOUTH CAROLINA'S acc(-rIted as a rcsult of natural for(ces or Is ta resull of it PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE pernmittcd strt( ilure sh.lIl xctdtl Ithe ori oginal atI)(licrt iille or bolllndatry. I'rolided, further, that not persoln or The public trust doctrinle-a (olrlillotI-law lrii- gverlimenlrial ge l yl ;S ydrlp I e trolp l ooted ill nt Rol na Ile rootel ivl oltiet ioil laws"l'-hias Uli)t crty at((retled tv atrtiral [,rime(ci s l i th rtsuiilt el )er- been (learly and exptansively applied by South (Cato- [llit(tdl or Ilollc)rlMlinted .stlU tIti.S [)IeVtlld ilit' 111C;In hi tgh water nmark as it ex.sted at the 'iire the pte lina's c-ourts. But isn iany (-ases. [tit (oliurts htalel ie/i- front property wa.s inlitially developed or .subdllnidledel, cated, almnost its anll aside, that tidal-flowed lands are and .luch property .Nhall rerialr, the property of tlhe held in trust for thie l)u)lic.n" State hfeld in trust for the people of ilthe State." 5 State law clearlyv provides that those ariats lyinig One legal comlmentator said that "[tlhose who below the le;anl low-walter line--ih;lt is, )erplettilally revel in statutory interplretation are invited to ctoil- sublmerged lanlls-are ilnl)lessed withi tIle trust.' 'I'lle sider the meanilig of this provision ... Whether this lifferences of o)pilion alilot)tg legal s(o lIolars focus i()l provision passes all accreted lands to the State or only whether the trust attactlces to the tidelainds, i.e., tihe those resultinig from developmnit or sulbdividing is periodic;ally tide-flowed laitls located lbetwcenl the unclear. " lines of mean high water all(l mean low water. 20 SHORE AND BEACH In) 1962 a foinivi stil( It-lg isla tot wilelO an exhaus- tee oflw cielidvlands, cIII( sctil( shooti N( .lt dt-vitt'd to liv le hgalI analysis of dir pt (viousI Ineilli1 oned Cape hold and admi ni slI I civi it, a cot dance wilth ilt- Rornam decisiont it) whith Itheu scale Sui~lerne Court changing needs of cIIe pit blIi ' sa]id: - Tlie litl to lauld huho I'.'liigi)-waliri mnatk cot tideal Ilavigable Smt(atits, ttitdt-t tin ei-stli rule, is PUBLIC: ACCESS RIGHT~S held tIn ttl. fo? Inobb ptll I) i/OA L. (.S,( I ik Iu its.t'S a s )l ug()I n73 ait nl W~as Si, lgt 1,~ Poinit in g ou t thita ttIns publ~iic cstlanguage was wheretut-fti'-vi ettn laws op ent'd their liii it( tCSsal N to ithe dh'is( fsit (anid it-m (- di( culn), tlt-' respective (olasis, by designariting [fit-III as ''public ex-legisla tot c~ii ciicizec b(nth timaI decision and Ilite sub- high ways",' Sonuth Cao hi tistorical ly has not cit - s(-(l tieni I HUr Hope cast'h wli hiiad favorably couraged p)ublic access to) tlit seasloior . Nor ita~v tite cluoited tit(' Cape, Rona in language-. it-It wsiote: sta ic's ~ourts i)(lstered(l oatsta a(((('ss 1w in~oking I1.~ Ititbli(trae Ill ou ( a Ile I v" Ihv ite1li- Such legal docli ites its intlpiied dedication1 and C-us. (i.11% ol a inits t sttdlteitly bload(-Ilo'ie hont latnds brItoN, (orn, wi ctiaebeeit1 ulsed yo tt uidito low w'altt mat k to lands], Ifelow% high'/ watetj niack .o..t Caroiita's leIsit cSail-th (;cieiril Assc'mnblv-ad- itaf x'.mt lIt net esskal liic Io alu l Inalhad 11w .a dressed 1)bcacce1ss cotwCrits itt 1977 by passing t 1w- lkind"I N- Imsct ] d bN tai tetl'sitg all irtisfitllatids toide- Coastal Zonte Maniagt'ieiit Act71 ''Ilte Slate's I 5(1 S~i I titolti itasgabie sticbii)at tii('it'~ 01t's miles- of sancay ieaclhes aiottg ihe Atlantic- are- classi- Isicll~ ~ a mnewydsooe aiucrtnd ;lili( sd fied as 'crihicai areas-''1 undec this law, meriting si)(-- cal alttetion iby tile (Coastal Council1.79 Tite c-ouncil, ''If is onu1 thiiing to1(-(reqiir ihta 1 soil tndcli navigable while plan iiing and implieme'ntcing beach erosion warei s be hold Su~bjec( l o IIIe ]Lltl)li( uISe. 1i is qulite c~ontrol policies, Is expressly directed to preserve ainolleric toXextell the truist, as a nteit cur of law, if ) beac-hes foi- public usc' and ac-cess.801 matsitlaiids, and dwiteht ityo dvii citt right oi oxvne.itt' U nder rules aitc regulations adoptied iby Iite councfl sinp t ii'tsitt 1)151iig1t5t5i t it ~ttig in 1978, 'Jtlh e x tenlt to Nltich [t almpcopsed I devel - taidtIci soh-ultt iia it ts. opment could affec-t existing pubilic- acc-ess to tidal Thw fol-nwt. le-gisla tolit viewsN N'.''it (-ottI ovt'rtd 111 and subiiiei ged lands, ntavigabile wvatel's and beachtes, 1978 by anothe It-tlgal (ommentacttoit, wh11( argue-d thtat or other rec-real onal c-oastal resources''11 must beo tid(lactds are subject to lte vpuIlbi( trusi .61 He did con- taken into consideration in deciding whether to evde, itowevet . that the stacemnent quoted above [torne ppo apritpp cnl clite Cape Romnain casc about thet geographtic excenc of appove an permit ll a(-vissue s icacion.re] xtl cthe public trust 'has at tract('di a stormi of cncroversy sively inl Iite South Carolina Coastal Management amottg attorneys, judges, attci citizens'' in the( state.6' rga.Attg h nn ces olccs io This commentator, attempting cco "demonstrate CotlCutiIfll eicossath ll uprt that a tidelands trust in South Carolina does exist,'' foirthit, and encourage' the plo' teiolt and. wherever based his opinion onl a detailed reviewc of common feasible, III( expansiot of public acc(ess to shot dine law, thc state's Constitution, case law nd sttts67 aca t iecatlzn.' Admitting that some tidelands itad been conveyed itito private owneirship, he contended that sucit lands noitetheless remain impressed with thet public trust; PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS snuilarly, whilie agreeing that the controversial Cape Rornain language was dictum, hie pointed out titat Private landowners alortg South Carolina's coast thic' state's high court had exp~ressly reaffirmed tha til eno aytaIioaltorligstc m' Hagug ion. th ae Ie Hoetead Hre9css constrantns reently have been imposed urtder the He ..il1611. a( coduded: oilItk, l( pplu scare's coastal management law and program. iIn todillingthte Jangte did- lii ur Capete Boppotn- F'oc example, although a private upland ow-ner's itfwveto citag therr language m desedb e ii Cape oan.drirect acc-ess to adjoining tidal waters is assured as a Rotnj~tstaerncn a tu rue wich ad een'rcaf-result of Itis right to naturally caused accretions, a fit tttttin itt ( llio u(' 1-ope NPlan at ,ot case.' It i. no question may arise as to whe'ther he( is en tiulei tco clea? thdat the, (owrt (on'.det.' both the tidelad' and unfettered ac-cc'ss when thc're is artificiallv ac-creced flth mi.bme)tqed lan& sp'. rj so~ to frpbl i n evigladS imilarly, while a private' littoral trwl'.f . ' '71 owvner still does not need to pay the state toi use the Besides fisiting and navigationt, ar(' other types of adjoining state-owned tide and sub~merged lands for pulcactivities embraced within tihe public trust his private doc~k or pier and for e'rosicon control inca- doc-trine in South Carolina? sures, Ite- must comply with pertinent rules and As a legal commentator put it: ''Uitfortunaic'ly, litc' regulations.,'1 I state.] Supreme Coutrt has never Itad thec opportunity However, the coastal managemnent program dis- to defitie attci to eXplain hflly thct' scope, nature, and courages private upland owners front developing and limfitationis of thce tidelandcs tt lst ill tltis slale..''7' In kee'ping certain types of impoundments, i.e., wetland his Op~iniiont, ''Ihiele should be tic ob~j('ctioiltoIc extend- areaIs diked off from adjac-ent tidal rivers and estuar- iitg cthe )ill. pu bliumur [the pittalitount right of cite( ies.1' 1-listori(-al ly, most coastal impoundments in Jhi ( il l titJaitcs subject: to the' pIl)tihI ic c usc] I o lif tictide Sou th Carolici were corigi nal ly used for rice( cul tiva- add iti(nal I IrpIoses'. . . fand as] cuIStica na atici trus- tioti ; aItit wglt cianty cof these imnpouncdmentIs have APRIL 1984 21 fallen into disrepair, some have been ma intained to attorney, hotho it clhe South (aio l illa (:()Pasra I oulln- attract waterflowl for recreational htunting .8 cii, anid Kenneth P1. WVoodillgt0 ni, SenIIa r assi slan. rhie Coastal Council's rules, While trot encouraNg- at tority gereria I, Slate of Soutah C acaloli nl, filt pra() aid - ing Impounmdment of previously undisturbed sal inte ing sotne of ithe souart n tia(t ial C i ted itt di is atrittle I. anid brackish water marshes, favor the redi king and III adlditio n, thle authIor aal art wats tite oltt stariliting embankment repa~ir Of former iMpou-IldnilelIS ratherf assistance plovided by Sutaantie E. Glaber, alttolttCV. than impounding currently undisturbed areas." clam fancier. arid his pattrint wife, Ira atonly III connec- tion With this airtiCle but throughout rIte Cl'Itir 'Clanishtl I' series. Last, butt certa itt v not least, tile LEASING AND REGULATION author thanks Patricia eturmon of CorrpulterM ized r- OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS vices, Sausalito, California, for tier wotdprocssrttg prowess anid extraordinary cooperat tor. A. Leasing South Carolina's coastal zone leasing activities are REFERENCES relatively littited when compared with those of other 1 lt-%.Paii ifn o,2 ...0 6(8 ) states, although there are a number of oyster cultiva- 2 . St.e oacfSith (Caroiao CWoa,22s.Ctalit ti 1. tion and phosphate mining leases.11 and Fianal Eawiron nun al linpac t 'Slatemniit I-I1 (179) A statutory scherne provides that state-owned tide [hereinlafter C ited .as .S(C(2s111. and stabmerged lands may be leased for the explora- 3. Wtoodiirigtoi, ~Snnah Carolina Tid/cland.N I.aic' t (1982). non ad exractin ofoil nd ga or ther inerls!9See also S(XCMI', mipra note 2. at t- l3: WN lie. Tide- tion nd exractin of il aid ga or oher iincras.19lands andl the Publit Truiit: Apr n App/ac atin fra Son th In addition, the state Wildlife and Marine Resources Caro ir t~ 7 lg L~~I.Q. 137, 138- 130 (1978). Department is empowered to lease Sirbmerged lands .Note, Thil South Carolina Coa.%tal zone, Mala"'m.e'llat capable of producing shellfish, both commerc~ially 1ct of 1Q)77, 29 S.C.L. Re.v. train (1978). ;ll otihci AthIal- (with a 1,000-acre limit) and privately or noncom- tic Seaboard states hadk( passed (caastal wit .trulds II-gra a- mercialy (witha 2-acr limitarid prference beingtory laws hj' 1972. Ibidi. tnercally(witha 2-cre ltnirand pefernces eing 5. 1977 S.C. Acts 123; todifi-d at S.C. Code AtrIt. -�18-39-l() given abutting upland owners).90l etseq. (Cortha. Stipp. 1983). iFor a III ic disc ttssi~tollf rite aCt. See ' Iastt adc ReguLatlion of Coastal otte Lunds attil Watert ",' mila. B. Regulatory Functions Ii. Of) this tcatal shoreliine. 281 mriles mcreI iltt henrttitrlrai and 96iO mailes ate arotratt islandcs. SC(NIIP. mnprai non' 2, at 1-27. Under the state's Coastal Zone Manageinent (CZMl) 7. lei. at 1-I. Act of 1977,91 South Carolina intensively regulates a S . S.C. Code A\rtr. � 18-39-10) B) ((:attn. srtpp. 1983). 1liaise multitude of activities within coastal zone lands and C oastal countiies. a-ra trtnet ated Ill the So tttid (:,norarl t waters.92 Passage of this measure eliminated[ nearly a CIMVofas c hstal Zoe ar agaettlAcs l(t.cld lontiaatsdII. orlta decade's legislative effort to "entact a law that would areaS.' Ibid. lThe kct diefittes a cit Cica1 ltle a ia ts atrN 0I enable the State to resolve the conflicting demands thle fol lowirrg: (1) CoastalI waters, (2) tidlelairus, 3) being made upon (its] coastal resources."' b tcachls andt ( 1) larinrarN oceari fro sartt'dri dtittcS." id. In general, anyone desiring to ''fill, remove, �48-39-10j t)(J hCarn. Silltpp 198:h. Eachi of these lotit dredge, drain or erect any structure onl or Ill any wvav il(F), (G). (I 1). (1) ((:Jtrr. Stipp. 1983). alter any critical area''9 within the coastal zone tnust 9. lId. 1l8-39-3() (Ctttrta. Stripp. 1983). obtain a permit front ite Coastal Council created by 10. Note. snprii roti 1. 29 S.C.L.. Rev. at ti7 I. the state's CZM Act. II. Ellis classificatiot is tasi'cl for c otmietir .rcii ~ ad otti'k The concilhoweve, has direct permit-issuing I crity with ohrarticlt-s ill this Set ic%. It sitortld in' The council, however, has r~~~~~~~Ioted. howeve.tr, thiat thii." Series ciefittes dire it-rtil tde.- authority only within the four types of statutorily lands soatitedliat differeir tic. tlralt do "(ottre Souath (:at(ol- defined ''critical areas.""9 Moreover, the council has inra statuti's. cases arril leg al writers, lit this Set ivs, the restrictively intterpreted the geographic scope of its terrat is caedt refer to thtose lattdIs Is itta laietel'r rht' authlrit,"~ and many specific activities are statutor- lilies of ralean hligh watermaic rlrc~arrlaa ss~ water. Ira Sontat ily exempted from the council's permit process.97 Camltivtola, wthe wodtridwlada isitcad' it c at ly ashetls. Fo Additional regulatory franctions are performed by at hrief cliscoissimortcf Sauttl Caroli .lra utsage', see nR",te "arious other state and local agencies under a ''net- II- Ilii Iafrca illtd ac( tatttpmatrirtg txe working'' a~prcoaclt.91 12. SCICMI11 snura itole 2. .11 1- 17-1I52 It is a stitrtatt Iriasa sari(ols garver ttrtaetral (.taritescs rapplito lttatluk 30". 'rite Soua th Carol ina Coastal Managemiertt Pro- caf tll(.sai' At lairt it O( )tall i arcitum( ta bt tat i .,titas, grant, developed lay the (Coastal Cotitcil unader the irlaldidtg thec atljoirtirag aapl~atild siotcar i taI. le] ill\'.3; state CZM AXct, gained Federal Governmentt approval elecphliott corrs'ersaro oic tra .IaJar. :10. 18I'M. withI New at in September 1979. Unrder rite program 's two-tier J 1. (Jatk) Stttit ii anrorrtev St raila Carol ilat~ Ca aaslt~ rnanagetten t approach, ''nonacrittcal areas'' are only 1.Itewrsaa/ at ttlaclaaaaes at' iatstad directly affected by the coLuncil's directives. ixnntrolk rasc ath Carculi ira law. St-C., e.g.. S.C. Cock tatt. �18- i3-30n 131)(11)) (Cutlin. Satipp. 1983) (otil ACKNOWLEDGMENTS II.. Ill taon castXtttcuate Ituisdalk icars, it is getterlII arc ag- llizcvdI aotllt ftsott rItetelvitaital .rztcl ltc lightl slaaaildpaillf. thlat ricte trt trtidaterds, refers it) leattds l'~ mtg iatc'twea alit' The author is grateful to If-. Wayne Bean, Ph.D., liutes [cit) arrealt h ighwn'rte (ide) tiud trntart Ic w waret- executive director, arid Newman J. (Jack) Sntith, (de.Ill Sothitl (:arclirra. ilowese.rte1 wit( %VlI tidelands 22 SHORE AND REACH II1.15 ilsi ('1iiliiitu lI:IIt" l'gaillN ( lassifittI as uplanrds ill 1 7 Sit', e.g., WX'c it, ,'upra notitl 3. 7 I:A oliig 1..Q. atl 1.12- tnOltN ittli Statu's. I ]its is Calut', lii palir. lo rut lact that l1 5, l1 7. 1 6; Notw. .itzip note -1, 29 S.(;"A_ Rev, at 667- South Cayoliiii's legislators have dehrirt'd 'tidelands" so 669, 685-686. 7021. For all vxc elvtiit disc ussion of this as Io til luit 6oth (I ) lands /n'/oi' thre nicali ItighWl t-gati legl plesuiiiptoti thlat the stateflits f)rima iiciI ir title( lo tai lk tiotl (2) also i t rain atlas afou'e that line(. Wv( hu'. tidelands as soveit-igit lanids, Se-i gerretallIN Wotoditrgttoir .sti/mi il01 Yl. !i,7A olopg IQ. at 158 & ii 11,I-13. supma not(e 3. T1his pipjtti h a set Sio assistant alltorvie Ilit Soul)h (.aoltill Ciiastal 1.0th' Mallag (.'rrieri (C/NI) geietlual olf the State 1)1 Soutlr (.atoilina. Was Itt'scrliw(I at Ait I o 1977 duilrr, ''licit liricls'' lo Intleart arrjoigri crther i t tidelarids seminarr slroonsord h; tlite Un'ivivesilN of Bal- []alligs. ''all it eas wm lIjI are al ori below~ nit-'.ll high ftide tIriole S( Itool of 1Law arid otlwietsdminilg O.t tobcri I982. aind iuasltil ss'r'tlaricld,. itlirdilats, arid similar areas ithat I S. Wioodingiorr, Militia note 3, at 1-2. Ilowe-ver (fluring flth air tiliigniltis oII aljai em to c oastal waters arid are- art 1970s thi' Southt Carrilira Stiprrict' Coitr 'bcgait to fill i'l.~l ;xii t of tire esitrliatri svslsreris irisilved.'' S.C.. hrind rIIote waivs ill whtich SurchI intlnt (Aild( Ie provelr. (Aide A11ti. �18-59-10(.) (( Arrii. Supp119.I983). tltts er tiding flth plima (toitl r ile to sortie c'xrert." Id. at I li at tl'ltrr's '.ristl wr'rlanrds' its ill( eldirig 2. Set' alsorN') lit-r, .supra ix rity 3. 7 LI- irlogy 1Q. at 1,12- ''rililsllts. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I-5 rrrtl~r.ai hlos'at stiairglliA 7, 169; Note.supra iolt' 1, 29 S.(:.L. Re . at 66'7- 'ihllr-. alias periodilnallN imnriiaird Ihs saline, waters 668. 702. XNlirtlI h'r oi )it tle S,diirrr water Sea lutII diel area naml- Ilor lbje K, whtilut oriet'dirig tha~t doiulirs have aimsear rIls ii rhlioughj atl tilir liti Isar ( orirsis arid thorse areas aboiurt w~ltat lhe calls *rtrarslrlarrds tilleS," m-Niesrlieless, [fina im1 toiir irllN lihirarteriiel hv Ilit' plureallurie of ciiritcrids that Sour I Car nI ii law uphoilds [fit, alitli iv S.Ilimr ~alter segeraitiortcll aable. of growthl arid ie-plo- of private owiwter-ship of surel[,i lars. See, e.g., Iloilliec k, I tilt Iion.' Ibid. .supr flote 16, 1- .C..Q at 289. 29-1-298. 3I,-`)16, 333. 'I it'- stait (:C/NI A( i's letigthby definti tiont of *'tide- 3.59-360, 362-36-1. laridi'' also ( oitairis Sontic' additional qualifications arid F -or furtheri disc-ussions, set' Clinul-burg & Krahmer, tiles oIf intel preitriOrri it lurditig a piroviso that dlie Tilt 'au 1a'Pertaining it) Elsfuirie ILand~s in South Coiastail (I lathil itimaN 'designate Ithe] approximate Ca rolinat, 23 S.C.1.. Re%. 7 (1971); Logan &- Willi ams, gugeigaphiri exiten t of tlire definedl ticlelarids pending a Tidelaid.s itt Soruth Caolitti: A Sludv in thec -au, of 5t irui tilit deterumilatron o rIl''th exact geogi aphic: extent tReal Jtop~el-tv, 15 S.(..I. Rev. 657 (1963). of this dc'firiitiort.' Ibid. 19. Wotocdirgtoll, .srzpw note- 3, at 21. juollItwinrg the: C/NI Atn s% passage, lthe cciumril, 20. ''Thu (.laeriial Assembly [ legislature] incldtided sectlioll "wvitli biologicali field ur' sarid act-ial p~hotograp~h. 22 iii the( 1977 ICZMI) Act in art e-ffort to accommitiodate . . . lourid thre point oil tlhe upper rea(ieI.s of til' eslUil- lthe [then] C;(i'trtrr's objeetiots'' about tlie litck itt lthe rIriu tSys tem is w hce till liduad r ,imavgeca tionr (-htanges f ronti pItrrv iiusl y ye tcrd I1976 coastal 11o111 bills "of it pro% si ot preiruirninirir blac kishi to ptelrudrninarrly flush and . .. mairireulla prornetfing the( rights of private ('lairrants to esra blislied it (oastal water arid tideland boundar% using f lthe tidelands.' Note., sujlt note, -I, 29 S.C. L. Re'v. at 685 rio nreatest t'etogriizablc' physical features within fil l (footnitte,, Omiitted)l. Su. tion 22 in the 1977 law is t odi- area.'' S.C. Cobastal Courkil, Guwdrliites and Policies of fic'd at S.C. (Codl Ann. �-18-39-220) (Cutti. Supp. 1983). flit, S11. C. Coalal .41apageoeiit 11rogratn '1(1982). Adrriir- Btrt see( id. ��48-39-190, '18-39-220(C) (Curn. Supp. tstiatmIvc'l the( counrci] promulgated rulc's and regula- 198:)). ritirs ellinig forth this landwar'd boundary. Set- 2A As Wyche assirtedl: '.../J/u're is nrothintg il .sec'tioni S.C. Code Ann. Rule 30-I OA( I) (Curn. Supp. 1983). 22 o in the( 11977 C/NI] Act Maln alfer.% 07 i0 airy way. Inl surit, therefore, all enornious area Of South Carol]- aIffe(I.S flit, rule t/iaf f/it state i,% prsfipiit/yte rina maN he legally characterized as ''tidelands'' for cwnr'i,' of all latnd.'r belowth de totat hiig/i-waier ?ti ark."' t'ilinr t pi'lurp~oses or regtrlators' purposes, or boil]; Nort' .supra note, '1, 29 S.CI.. Rev, at 686 (emphasis such "i'tick-lands'' mav' embract' swanripy and situi lar adcc'cl; forotriote ornirted). Sec alsoi it]. at 702. It ids, tia t are treated as privately owned uplands fitt 21. Wocidinrgtotr, suprcr noti.' 3, atl 1 -1-19. Thlest' arc' not rio st othlt' jurisdictions. Thr.' geogr afplii cxtent of hard-arid-fast eras, lrowc'vc'; Somet. phrosphate' mining, ''t iicelrds,'' as thus defined by the state''s C/INI Act1, is lor instance, still takes place in coastal areas. vast. ''South Carolina contains somne .504,4-15 acrc's cif 22. Id. at 1. coastal mrarshes. more f/ant anty ot/her Atlantic coast 23. R. Powell, The Lace of Rt'al 1-roperty,~J 60, 63, pp. 188. siate,. 01 this amnount, 334,501 acres are classified as salt 191-1 97, 21-1-216 (1981 ); Wychec, .supra rime- 3, 7 Ecology trat sIt.'' SCCNIP, supra note 2, at 1-13 (emphasis L.Q. at 142. atldced). 2-I. id. at IA2-1-13 (footnotc' oriii ted). Priv~ate land titles, IS5. N\'ychc, sup)ra note 3, 7 Ecology L.Q. at 137 n. 2. detractcI fronii prolmtietarny grnits, havc' bc-ci legislar ivc-ly I 6. Ili twso volurninous laws rev iews articles 22 years ago, validated. Id. at 1-12 ii. '40. Jochit MilIcs Hot lbeck, a former meumber of thec Sotith 25. Woclirigtori, .supta noute 3, at -1 (I iataiorts Omritted ). (;ztrulinij House of Representatives, exhraustively ex- 26. Stale v. P'ickitey, 22 S.C;. 18-1 (1885). Ini art 188-1 case, I)lI Icdrc'cli'th history and status of thic' ownc'rslrip'' of Slate v. P'acific Guano Co.. stipra, 22 S.C. .50, lthe court what huc rc'ferred to as ''marsh or tdce lands'' in that Uphldcc, ill glc'ic'al, [flu Statu's owner ship of submcergc'd stare(. Horlbtek, Titles to Alars/ilandc bit Sout/i Carol- lanids itt tidal channtels. ina, 1I -1S.C. L.Q. 288 (pt. 1) ( 1962); 1-I S.C.L.Q. 335 (pt. 27. WVoodigiognt, supra note 3. at -1-5. 2- 1962~). 28. 22 S.C:. at 507. Hlows'-v, tlrt' couirt uphc'ld privant' I-Ic srated '''Marshlands' is a rterm usedc Iret tin sv'nt- 0w'ivitshripi of it prior grant of 120) acrcs of tidelarids. id. orivinously with 'tidelands,' be-cause most of I/hc Sol t/i at -198-199. Curnolinta c~asi, use f /e word 'oiarshilauidst althlocigl the( 29. Wsoolirtgtori, .supra ntittc 3. atl 8-9. Nsorcl 'shore' or 'shorelaiids' has bee-n usc'd tot triari 30. Cape Bontari Land & Imip. Co. v. C;anniiing Co., 148 'tidelands.'' Id., 1-I S.C.L.Q. at 29)) (emphasis added). S.C. 428, 1-16 S.E. 13l(928). Set' al so id. at 296 (Colonial arnd statc- grants slrirc'tinlics 31. Woodirigtort, suprti iort' 3, at 9. referred to ''marsh lands,'' ''fitoKc-r islands arid 32. Id. at 10. marshc's,' ''rush lands,'' ''low lands,.. .. *siries'' arid 33. Cape loroa in L-and &' Imip. Co. N. ("atiling Co., srzpra. ''marshes''). 118 S.C. at -136. 1416 .F-: atl '137. For it bril ditsc rissicori(of Ini gencral, Horhic'ck use'd it)e [rc'rrr tar~shlatid's wshile' tlii' case, s(c' Rt-ceri Corrmrient, 7 N.C..L. Rev. -179 v'igorotusly assc'ruing that tlrt stiltc' (tsr its iptedc'csscot s)(12) had conlveyed large trac~ts of tidelands in to private M-. 1.ant' v.% cLr'i-r. 251 S.C. 272, 162 S.E. 2d 17-1 ownership. Seec' e.g., id. at 358-361. Il is as~scrtiori is ( 1968 supported scitewhar by a statc l "s'cn 'Ini South 3 5. Wooi'ticltgtir, mitpra licitc' 3, at 1.1. Itt r' critly dec-idc-d Cartilinra, [the privarc'1' hitdc] tidc'lairds art gt-ttc'ally stilrst'tirt'rit t(asc% ttvrlv'iing tnibit'eds litlies. tlic slate has owneitd it trathc-r large' parcels, clifitri bs (dcsc crdinits of won for tittinl lost tl t.tt. Id. anl 11-19. lthe original plantatiorr owritis.'' WVo'irrii or 36. 67 Stat., 29; toitiuid it -13 I 'S.C. � 1301 ef seq. note 3, at S. 3 7. Um(-d ttc Sttjt's v. M/auim' '121) U .S. .51I5 I(I9 75). APRIL 1984 23 3 8. I lot Iliti k, .supra inote 16, ii1 S.( .L.Q. at 29(1 ("''meanl fishling inl tidal IN. t'rs, sit' shorr' and Beath, V'nI. IX, high water hilak' or 'high wailei mhii V is fthe point No. 1, October, 198(1, pp. 18-119. rea( dit II II C tlithighIIt O I it IIotI dll N. IIighI or flood (if). See, e.g. State v. 110 (/ee , 2.59 S.C. 535, 193 S.E.2d 197 tide''). W.Xv( iie, .Su pro non' 3, 7 E( ology L .Q. atl 1 37 ii. 3, (1972); Roel Pi/'ilantationl %. S.C. Pulb Sn. N r.1l/, ctlilig wKith favoi Borax, Li1d. v. Ciiv of Los 1 ugeles. 216i S.(. 500, 59 S.E. 2d 1,32 ( 195(0): C'ape 1itomail L~anit '296 U.S. 1(1, 26-27 (193,5), Iin whoih [lie U.S. Supierele &~ Im/h. Co. v. Canrling C ,o.. Nup/ra, 1 18 S.C. 128, I le6 Court ''approved file genlerally au ejpted definition of S. E. 13-1. A slate t olstiliirional plovi~sioll Itijqlircs Itealia high water mark ats 'tlit' avelage height of all tile illavigabile waters to Ielilainl pubilic lhigllwayls fiee( to thle high wa-lters MCIver.. it period of 18.6 VersLctizell. S.C. Const. ait(. I 1, �41 ( 1976). See also S.C. 39. Stale N-. Pit knev, su pra, 22 S.C. at --)I1 (emlphasis added). Code Annl. 0 9-I -1( (Cunil. Supp. 1983) (Ilay iga ble -1.Cape Romain Land -'- Imlp. Co. v. Cornnl ng (o,o .supra, htrealiis :111d wateliolrses are coiiiilitoi high ways). 1-18 S.C. at -136--137, 1 16 5. E. at -137. 6i1. See, e.g.. Wy( fit-, supira note 3, 7 Ecology L.Q. atl 139. IL. For at bi ief diSt t.sionl Of tile Sei]IllattiC polbIleinS Str- 153. rounding tile ilofilte( irailcal le-gal phrase otnay 62. (;ape Romraiil Ieand & Imp. C:O. N. C.Onn~irg Co. supra. high-water mark," which origiltatud at English (<Ili- 1-18 S.C. at '138, I1-16 S.E. atl 138 (eniphasis addedl). moin liw, titlt the U.S. Stipietint ( litrt',, 1935 Borax 63. Ric flope Plantation v. S.C. Pube. Serv. A1ut/i., xupra. de cisint qtiatillg that teril with [ise it hn ital iv tde- 2 16 S. C. 50(1. 59 S. E. 2d I 32. finttl hutil of mleall high title" (water), set' Shore andl Ti1 I loirIbck~supra tlott' I6, 1-1 S.C.L.Q. at 362-36-1 (emphia- Betat/i V ol. 1, No. 1, Ortober 1980, pp. 17-18. sis addltd). 42. S.C. ('odt Am]. k-3 1(-)(Coin. Stlpp. 1983). See 65. Wyc he t itspro note 3. 7 Ecology L.Q. atl 1�19, 169; see also Id. �18-39-10)(G) ((-otti. Stipp. 1983), defiiiing. il a lso Note, .supra ilote 1, 29 S.C.L.R. at 693. 7(0:. part, tidelaiids'' as ''all areas which are at or below 66. NN'Nclit supra liotc 3, 7 Ecolog~ L.Q. at 155. maeie Iiii-lsi tidt'. ' 67. Id. tt 139, 1 11-1 58. -13. fintedlar/n Ilardens s-. Ch'/arleston -'- 11'. C. Rv. CO., 68. Rice ifope Plaontation v. S.C. Pub. Sent'. .1ut/i., mupra., 136 S.C. i'52 13 I S.E. 197 (1926); .Spigener %. Cuoner, 12 16 S.C. 500, 59 S.E. 2d1 132. S.C.L. (8 Rich.) 301 (1855)1. 69. State v. flardee, .supra. 259 S.C.'535, 193 S. E.2td -197. '14. For a brief e-xplaniation of tlet conrrtiolt-Iaw rtile, see 70. Wychie. supra note 3. 7 Etolog~ L.Q. at 156 (fotnlitttt S/iore arid Bette/i. Vol. 5(1. No. 2. Jully 1982, p). IS. oMilled; emiphrasis added). -15. S.C. (Side Ann. �-18-39-I'20(B) (Cuns. Stipp. 1983) 71. Id. at I169. (e'tphasis added excepi) for. words ''rvdd'.72. 1Id. at 1701. -16. Note, mopra note 1. 29 S.C. L. Rev,. at 681. ITlat tcoin- 73. For arit' itsin of Orcgon's 1899, 1913 and (tiler mettraddetd: ''The constitutiontality of thle prov ision early coix l'pbi iha" as t t1 sta maN- dt'pCntl Lupo1tilte Conlstrutction adopited. flt' pros-i- state'-, compichvr'Itiisii. t 1967 BeachI Law, set- /hore arnd sioll is probably unconstitutional to) tilte extent ilhat it Beat/i. Vol. 50 N o. 3, Juml% 1982, Illp. I6- 17, 19-20. 21. plirp~lirs to) change existing Ilaw- aitt pass to the Statt' 22, tinl. 2. -1. 17, 18, 20, 19, "(1 51. lands rthat at t r't'ld prior to passagt' tif thet [,,tale's CZM J 7-1. For at brief tliscussion (C Wa':shinigton 's 1901 coastal Act. lThe provisiotn miglit withstand cotist ituttiorial 'public* highway' law sartt its t'xp~atsis t 1963 oc~atal attack, however, if it itneanis that the State a~ctliicts title' 'pubici recreation art'a' act , see Sh/ore earid Beac/h, Vol. only to tiiiise landts that accrete ftiler enactinttent of tile 51 , Noi. 2, April 1983, pp1. 18, 20, till. .5(, 57. law."' Ibid. (Emphasis addetl; footiiites omtitted.) 75. For brief discussions tif tilt applitatitin oif %ariotus legal -1.For a brit'f tlist LtissOti Of tile tinsual Californlia artifi- c o tntcepts by some other states' tiitrts, see tilie fotllowing cial a(ccretion rutle, see S/iore and Bentt/i, Vol. 19, No. 2. articles ill this series in S/hore anti Beat/it: Voil. 19, Noi. 2, April 1981, p. 22. April 1981, p). 28 (Califtirniia; imtpliedi dedicatioll); Vol. .18. Malottey &. Ausness. The U se and Slqmfif ante of t/ic 19. No. -I, Oc tober 198 1, p. 28 ( 1exas; imipliedI tletita- M/etn fiigh/ Wa'ter Linle In Coazstal Boundary Malpping. [rion); VoL. -19, No,.'i, Jutly 1981, p). 16 (Floridla: etisoiti): 53 N. C. L. Rev. 185, 225 ( 197-i). VOiL 5(, Nii. 3, Juily 1982, ppl. 1(6-17, 19-2(1 (Oregon; -19. See A IIinotI. 1 31 A. L.R. I1(57. 17 2 ( 19-Ill. ustolli). 5(1. App... v. Freemanm. 261I S.C. 375, 200 S.E. 2d1 235 ( 1973). 76. S.C. Codte Ann. � 18-39- 1 0 et seq. (Cutmi. Strpp. 1983). 5I. I) (tiate, it appeals hfat Soutith Carolina appellate coutrts 77. Variotis auithorities tlisagree on (lie itotil mtileage' of the have not ruled oin this partictilar issue'. Onle lt'gal corn- state's beach les. For examuple, tile Smal/i Cairolina cotts- munetator wroit' that at rtilitg couldi arise tin a lawstuit ii lto Malnagemnent Program dicratumiren staltes that there wthicitl tie state argties . ..that it actj tires all lands are '' i58 mriles of Atlan tic Oceanl slsoreli tie.'' SC AI P. that have accrut't't as a result Of dleVVI' lopiilt Or sttb- Allpra o tte 2, atl IV-6 I. A studtent law r'vit'w nolite savs divitliug, even though thle Owner onl whose property [tite that there are ''187 tinIes of oc'arifroiut beach.'' Note'. accretion happens to occur is riot rspoinsiblie therefore W h'iich Wa'y Ito tile Beat/i? Public Access to Beatt lies for [sic1. " Note, supra tiote .1, 29 S.C. L. Rev. at 685 n. 1 19, Recreational Purposes, 29 S.C.L. Rev. (527. 6.51 (1978) TO be mittre wt'hitiiially precise, that commentator (footnote orisitted). priobally aiicraft to refer to thle private owner of the 78. S.C. Code Ann, -839l() (11), (J I (Corm, Supp. adjacent litttral or riparian parcel to thi/i It the accreted 1983). land itititiatuly lit'COIites attached; such accreted land, 79. See, e.g., id. ��18-39-30(1)), 18-39-10, 18-39-50)(L). (M). altso relerreti to iii thle law as all uvioti, would actually -18-39-80, -18-39-130(D) P1), 18-39-I 50(AX)15) (Cumm. Suppi. ibegirt fortttiig tin the abutting tidelainds, which gener- 198:1).. ally are iiwmiltl iii rtilt, bv the Stare rather thlat by pri- 8(1. fid. � 18-39-I120)(A), (B1). (1)), (E) (Culit. Stipp. 1983). %at poitis.See ''Fitlelards'' tunter ''['itle to Lands 81. 23A S.C. (Side Art i. Rtile 3(1-Il I115) (Clin. Stp.18) WVithiii thet (Siastatzl Ztin.' SoUpra. 82, .S(CCMP, in pra mite 2. at [V-6i-I 52. U .S. I~ep't t it i iteior. Report of i/ie Barrier I~slairnd 83. See ''Legal Effect tif Illrstia I C:hangt's ill tIit' Location1 W 1ork G roup (1978). ats cited tin Note, Barrier Isband.s: o if thre Shn ireliie'' tinder ''D1eri'rniiiatitit dt Fit [I I Thei (,onrfit Betweceni Fedteral Program~s That Promnrote Botnatlai's.'' -sopro. .\s 1ioiirtt' our( there, sotte unlter- Preserrvrtltio anti Tho~se Thai Promrote l)ctveiopiminit, 33 tailirty e'xists aiotit tIt.- legal teli'cit of a 1977 statuitory S.C.L. Rev. 373 ( 1981 . pr vso that purpots tii altt'r thie general nt'tl with 53. S.C. (;iite AXrm. �-l8-39- 12(1(A) (Cuin. Supp. 1983). rt'spec t ito ow-iit'shiip of arirlufit ialy au(ctrttd priiprtrtV, 51. SCCAIIP. so pro iott' 2. at[ I V-52-53. 8-h. See Thei P'rogram~is of C:oasetal States fo)r i/ie Iea.smrg of 55. Id. at LXV-5)3. Subrmerged Landts. at Report to) S.C. Ciiastal (Coiitil 5 6. fid. at IV-5 I -oil). Commrtn oii L~easing uif Stbiciriged Lainds. 13 (1983). 5 7. Id. at [V.62,IV6, IV-t7, IV-69. I jowever, Coastal (,ttrchidI rtiles attd regtidat itis set' 58. rId. at IV-64. forthI spt-t if ic s Iandida ts fo r titit-ks an trie i rs Iin t ias a I 59. For a brit'f tfiStCUSSitn Of thle publiC trust tlottrine, waters. 2'3A S.C. (Site AXnn. Ride 01(1I2A (Ciuirtl. .Supp. which realates to thle publ ic's rights of navigation antI 1983). 24 SHORE AND BEACH 85. S(XNI 1, %upia futc 2, atl I1-.52. Thet 1977 state act gOverninlg Oil and gas exploration. 81 . Id. at 111-52-)3. See also ...Iide-laitds' Under "Title to waterfront and offshore terminals, oil spills and related Lands Within die( Coastal Zone.' sufpra. pollution problems also stresses environmental and 87. 23A S.C;. Code Anti. Rule :40-12K2k) (Corn. Supp. NM8). ecological concerns. It declares that 'the highest and See alsit S( CUIP. supra noic 2, atlll5-. bes't use of the seacoast . ..isas a source of publit and 88. Ali ofi al 198.3 stai t(''-putt (ormnetis:' South Caa ol- private recreation," and that 'the prest rsation of thist nral exet t [Iaela:ivvel I hlittl (on rol ovet the uise of its use is a matter of the highest urygeaucy and pri orit anid so mini i1t4td landLs tornpaied to( some11 otlici t oastal that such Ilse call only he served efft tivetI' bv main tamt- Sidaivs ....Tlwiet is its). ..lasintg. oif subuinet get lands] ing thet coastal wsaters, estoaries, tiad l fltS, be-achets, atitl bN tfIn Sitar-e 'vp'for lot (stet cul tisation. phosphatec pub ic lands adjoininggtesaos n o oapA ]ntitineg, alld thec gtaintitg ofltights of! %aN for pipielinevs titne condition as possible, taking i01(1 a~ccoutt mulltipld 0r utilit lincs.' 7/ic )'ogriamin of (oSta tates lo), thne Use accommodationls necessary to plousidt. the hi oadest lea~miii of.thIer~ od.Aiii1'8.a 2 possible promotion of publii and piivtv aitnterests." Id. 89 . S.C.( .(Code Aiti. �18-'l3-39U ((Cmii. Supp. 1983). Ths 48--l3-520(1I , (2) (Coun. Supp. ]i 9) ( 101pha ti% added). lass. 01 ginlalk c'lia(wtd ill 1977. ptovid es': "TFhe .. 901. The Prograins of (coas'ta 1 States lo) the I~ca~slnt of Budget and( Cutnttl Boatd [ Irail thet autitorit'(, . . . to Subnterged Lands%, supra note 8.1. at 12. Iatim .tll Stale( flateds ...lot . . . duflling for atid] plodin - 91 . 1977 S.C. Acts 123: c odified atl S.C. (odu Atrt. 4-3 1(1 Unitl (II il attd gas. The. diet Wlc R'sotitees Dfepai I- ct seq. (Corn. Supp. 1983)). South Catolitta vilws rela- twiltt . .. is . . . the . . . agent fot the Boatid ill selct(n titlelsI lart 'inl passing such a tegohitut y schenrev. latidst bu leased. adhitittwistt g the( (omnptitive. bid- 92. ''~1972 fed tr-oltcAaiilws xtp ol ctiug flo lease,.. fatiti] adttitristetitng thet leases. Id. Carolina had enacted legislatioti that t,.tlablishudal l~- 81 8-13-39(tAi (Cumn. Tupp). 1983). lhoritN over ws'lat is perhaps tihe most critical i t(suictt The state's WVate Resomit s Comnmissioni must recotti- of ilthccoastal zone, the wetlands.'' Notw. sulpra nout'- I. mendtl~ that the( least' bt' giantted atitl a commlission p('t- 29 S.C.L. Rev. at 666 (footnote omitt'llc). These othtic mil mu1(st be obtained before dt illitmg opt'rat ions art states' statutes arc enumerated at ibid. n. 5. Moreovet a beguir. Id. ��-8-43-370(A), '48-43-390( B) (Cumn. Suppr. legal commentator has asserted that South Catulitna's 1983). D~rilling w%-icite a mniticipality is not permitted 1977 CZNI Act has many shorwcotnitgs. Id. atl 672. 674, unleiss the local eattity apprlioves issuatict of a state pet - 694, 701-703. titit. Id. �48-43-370(B3) (C'thti. Supp. 1983). 93. Id. at 667 (footnote omietttd). 'No peaa ito1( drill a gas or oil wsel I on any beach 9 1. S.C. Code Atm. 048-39- 130(C). Ste also Nowt. 50uira note shall be granted't by Ithe Water Resources Commtissiotn.'' 4. 29 S.C.L. Rev, at 671. 672, 7(11. Id. �48-43-370(C) (Cointe. Suppr. 1983). However, ''[illic 95. Idt. at 672-674. conist tttioit of dii I hig Jplat[(irtts ill the Atlantic Ocean 91 . Id. at 673-674, 676-678. is ptrinititd cx( 'cepitihtat suith llatftirmtis shall not be , 97. S.C. Code Atm. �-18-39- 130(I)) (Cootre. Supp. 1983). Seec located w'ithin one mitr Ic. of the, nten hugh water als 15)Wy(11. su pra o10te 3. 7 Etotlogy L.Q. at 166; Note, nork of airy beachI wi thin the iteritorial jui isdictioit of supla owttt 4. 29 S...Re%. at 701. tile Starte of South Cat olina." Id. �48-43-390(F) (Cuin. 98. Id. at 675-676. 700. Supp. 1985, (emphasis added). APRIL 1984 25 The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part X'TI: The Maine Approach By PETER 1-I. F. (;RABER Attorney at Law San Francisco, Ca liornia t 'NCTt'ATED by sharp identations and guarded by B. Tidelands 3,000 islands,'l Maine's rocky coast offers one of thce nation's most scenic seascapes. Millions of In 1692 Maine became a part of the Massachusetts visitors are lured annually by the picture postcard Bay Colony,' theieby inheriting the colonial ordi- beauty of this 3,478-mile shoreline?. nance of 1647.12 Under this early law, upland owners Legal rules governing public and private rights in generally acquired title to the abutting tidelands.'3 the Pine Tree State's coast are a mixture of the old and After achieving statehood in 182074 Maine incorpo- the new. rated the colonial ordinance into its common law.'5 An old ingredient: the Massachusetts Bay Colony's Consequently, most of the state's tidelands are pri- ordinance of 1641, which is one of the sources of vately held.'6 present-day public rights to sail and fish in Mainc's Where tide and submerged lands had been filled tidal waters.? before October 1, 1975, the state quitclaimed its title to A new ingredient: the 1981 statute4 quitclaiming to private parties under the 1981 statute mentioned private parties the state's title to and public trust rights above.t7 in tide and submerged lands that had been artificially filled before 1975.5 C. Submerged Lands TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN In 1953 Maine's title to submerged lands within a THE COASTAL ZONE 3-geographical-mile belt along its coast was confirmed by the federal Submerged Lands Act.'8 Maine's coastal zone comprises "all coastal towns Subsequently, Maine spearheaded an effort by East- and townships on tidewaters, all coastal islands, and ern Seaboard states to assert each state's "exclusive the sea to the limits of the State's jurisdiction."6 The right of dominion and control" beyond the 3-mile area thus extends seaward to the outer limit of the limit, but the United States Supreme Court rejected United States' territorial sea and landward to the their contention in 1975.'9 inland boundaries of the coastal towns and townships.7 Lands within the coastal zone may be divided into uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.8 DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES A. Upland/Tideland Boundary A. Uiplands As a result of Maine's adherence to the colonial ordi- Private parties own 95 percent of the uplands along nance of 1647, the property boundary between public Maine's coast, with nonresidents owning more than and private lands within the state's coastal zone is gen- one-third of these lands." The state, however, asserts erally the low-water line. The littoral owner of the "title to all islands located in the sea within [its] juris- upland parcel prima facie owns the adjoining tidc- diction ..., except such as have been previously granted lands.20 Nevertheless, because pri\vate parties may sep- a way by the State or are now held in private ownership, arately convey the upland and adjacent tideland parcels ... that were originally held as a single tract, the high- water line is sometimes the boundary in dispute. Whether the boundary is along the high-water or the low-water line usually depends on the language of the I.., I ' ..,.,, ,, ,.... .I,,II, l, ,,.m , ,. i , ,I, m, ..,,. ..l.., , ,f i .; deed. In general, a grant extending waterward "to the 1.1,,,.1111 ....1 e .11J f.11 I 111. 11 .. ... ......., i,,,,1 . '.....111.. .I .. "". -. shor c" has been construed to embrace only the uplands, ,} Itoh l in .fll11-d~. lEl .ll) Alp oi� IlhlXlll.}||K (} We%( "! llt,. all d, I )t I' t le m l'.t,'d 1 nhlH. l, I I, isi~~*llll-rl . ,,- .,,,, . ..... I .. . .{ (,- ..... ,II-I,,,I ,, excluding the flats or tidelands.2' 1I t . I....ll. .lll..l'.....II -Alleltlll|lll( 1t (ll . I.... . l(lll ...li..... I , Although the location of the high-water mark may dlll I,, } 11 [ tin I 111 $ *~1 I1,l .'1..,, . t ;l.l{}1,ll., . I [!1h i ) 11�i. 1P . . 1 ;l|tl I I 111 itlll} I. ,l]Il} . . ;'7 . .... . : . g, ,1 1 I 1 1.1.. I." also be important in ascertaining the landward limit of JULY 1984 17 the public's rights in tidelands,22 Mlaine's Suplreme While IMassac liusetrs (oirts hal i olisil r td he le pub- Judicial Cotirt apparenrtly has not liscutssed the apl)ro- lic trust inl tidelallds cel atively tnarrownly,14 tlie Maillne priate miethl d of deternltining that line. Supreme Judicial Court has al)l)poved various public uses of thle tidelands. For exa~mple, ; feIrr , h)at may lbe mnoored on privately owned explsced tidal flats to load B. Tideland/Submerged Land Boundary iatitischarge passengers.:'5 Te court has a;lsoa pilplozd the public's taking of shlilf'ishlu6 and digging for Maine, like Massachusetts, is among the minority of clamns:7 in the flats. coastal states in which the low-water line generally The public may walk along tidal flats, 8t but it is still demarcates public and private ownership in tide- unclear whether there is a general public recreational flowed lands. Unlike Massachusetts, however, Maine right in the tidelands.39 does not equate the term "low water mark," as used in Maine's high court justices declared in 1981 that the the colonial ordinance of 1647, to mean the "lowestebb Legislature must meet a "particularly demanding of the tide" and the "extreme low water mark."'2 standard of reasonableness''" in its attempt to release In an 1847 decision, the Maine court stated: the state's public trust interests in coastal lands that had "... he [colonial] ordinance declares, that the pro- been filled before October 1, 1975. In upholding the prietors of lands 'shall have propriety [sic] to the low legislative termination of these interests, the justices water mark.' It evidently contemplates and refers to a carefully analyzed five factors in what anIounted to a mark which could be readily ascertained and estab- balancing of public benefits and private expet tatioos. lishied; and that, to which the tide on its ebb usually The ustices found that (I) a legitimate public pur- flows out, would be of that description. That place, to which the tide might ebb under an extraordinary coin- pose was served by clearing title to filled lands; (2) filled bination of influences and of favoring winds, a few lands were "substantially valueless for public trust times (luring one generation, could not form such a purposes"; (3) extinguishing public trust rights would known bounidary,aswouldenabletheownerofflatsto not impair such rights in remaining tide and sub- ascertain satisfactorily the extent, to which he could merged lands; (4)equitable considerations justified the build upon them. Much less would other persons, expectations of private owners of filled lands: and (5) employed in the businessofcommerceandnavigation, the state's regulatory authority over the filled lands be able to ascertain with ease and accuracy, whether would not be diminished by the termination of its they wsere encroaching upon private rights or not,..."2 public trust interests in those lands." The court emphasized that the "ordinary," as distin- guished from "extraordinary," low-water mark consti- tutes the line.25 PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS There is one qualification, however: the boundary cannot be more than 100 rods, or 1,650 feet, waterward Compared with many other coastal states, public from the high-water line.26 access to the shoreline is somewhat restricted in Maine because the vast majority of the tidelands are privately held?2 The Supreme Judicial Court, while upholding C. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location the public's right to walk along tidal flats, has said the of the Shoreline public cannot cross private uplands to reach the flats."i Some legal commentators, citing the applications of Presumably, Maine accepts the traditional common- such legal doctrines as prescription, dedication and law concepts that property boundaries along the coast custom by other states to encourage beach access,"44 change when there is accretion or erosion.27 However, argue thtat these concepts also mnight be effectively reported appellate case law on this question is rare.28 asserted in Maine. One writer concedes, however, that "[a jilthough these doctrines are [generally] recognized in Maine, they have never been applied to establish public rights in coastal lands."45 NIAINE'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE In 1979 a bill was introduced in the Legislature to recognize rights of way on beaches within 6 feet land- The concept that the public has the right to use tidal ward of the mean high-water line, "provided that the waters for certain purposes - the public trust doc- public right to transit has been acquired by right of use, trine'9 - is recognized in Mlaine, despite widespread or easemenit, by prescription, dedication, custom or private ownership of the tidelands?"0 continuous right in the public ..." 6 'The bill was The state's law derives in part from the MIassachu- withdrawn by its sponsor withtout bleing put to a vote)47 setts Bay Colony's ordinance of 16 41. Navigation, "free fishing and fowling in any ... Bayes, Coves and Rivers, so far as the sea ebbes and flowes ..." are guaranteed under that ordinance," which is part of Maine's com- PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS mon law.32 Application of the ordinance was explained by the state's high court ill this way Private upland owners in Maine are legally pre- by the state's high court in this way: surned to have tile right of access to the ocean along "It has been judicially adopted, lot in the selse that the court extended it to this state, but that thecourt fotmd i their entire frontage.4" In additiol, they have a quali- extended by the public itself, as an expression of a fied right to erect wharves over the adjacenlt tidal public right, so acted upon and acqu:iesced ilas to have waters?9 MIunicipal officers are authorized to license become a settled universal right."" the erection or extension of whatrves.50 18 SHORE AND BEACH LEASING; AND) REGULATION 1. Nit. RI-.. Stiff Aimth ii. 12" 5.9 OF COASTAL ZONE LA NDS AND WATERS . it totisttttiojtiitt (if lilt stat tit was' uphe'Ild Ili all advisory optitlitit It IlII( Iilj isti (5I iithi MItimic Sitiptitnt Jui titcal Court. O)pinonI i~f Mce ]ust~r,% V 137 A,2d 597 (Nit. l981Y) Svt ''Tidc- A. Leasing Iiitdtl tutdt'ry '' I lilt, I( Lardsk Withill 111 Coastal Zone'' and "'Matil s Public It us? Do((filltti,'' oslo, lo]t a brief dimc ussioll of T1ht' director of hit'stalte But tau of Public Lands mav d II %tatutev andii h atknfisIIN opititoit. leaist, statc-owneitd tII& and subtit'rged landts lot stalu'- Ii. MC:!'. suijti flott 1, .it 58. toril~~ designated puiposcs, in( ludim, ( ~~7. Ibid. tortly designaed p~tJ~t)5e5 iru luding dedging, fill- 8. ' lii' l.Osstiiattttt is tistd~ lot tittttt-mijtti a d (onsisistti(wIt g. 'caust'ways, bridges, mat if, s. wharves, clocks or ui ttcisitti ius t ttsstif i ot irl~d a othllt permanent sti nctunits. * 'S [ten idefine-dil lilttt 11dof laIdotsb[itwvvfI diehint-sof ncim~t htigh Submerge(I lands m~ay be leased olo aqua(ultule of wNittvi .ittiind inti lmw watti. llowuctc, Iin Maine. as fio Mas-sacit l- so its. iiil ti llwltstotNisit'ft-Wilt- lo~ilsifth(or~/oe(tfi sclelttifit researc II by tit(, Ieparmuent of Matit lin ~IIddilit.l li ilt 111IInirtitdialrara isdc'fiiu'fd slattitorils to lt-ill Rcstutstccs.5~ 'all Il~ol idf oII. Id I)% Olt tilts- blu-t-titt nlatural high watt'rliiiatk attd vilit'l 10 ltttotds 1,65(1 Iet-(-ta[ t tiheticroltt it ou iiittatula B. Regulatory Functions 1()% wattItIrlt L. wftii i'ois bI set- to ilt- tiatutlal high watti- tiatik.'' N(. R(,N . Stat. Alm..tit. 12. � 559. Itt this scit irs tfic let lit .ztbdmlryged Iland% fa, itt cl iset'( to refit to thosV latids St-lAawad Of A numsbe'r of slta uit's re-gulate activities iii tht' coastal thit afair [ust *watfi [lilt t buta Niajite sttitd'insthis turil ats zone. F-or instance-, permits inust be obtained under the tit afatits "all land aflcitted lIn iOtn tidles staward of the naturall low Al teration of Coastal W~etlands Act55 from the state watcet rktd ot I0(Ortocls frottttii t natural hilghs waicrindirk. wlt6II it- Board of Environmental Protection or a municipality (1.(1t is t list-t toi Itaittttt iigit wato'mark. Ibul. before dredging, filling or erecting permanent struc- 91. NICK' suffla note- l, at 56. 1 0. Mt-. Re'.. Stat. Atimti. t. I � 27. tures in, on or over ans' coastal wetland54 or bulldozing, H i. Whiittlust'N, .'supra nowic 3 at xiii-xi%.. removing sand or building permanent structures in, onf 12. This ordinatit u, i.e,.. genrical lass- or statute. amen'tded the 1611 or- over any coastal sand dune.5.' ottdina ttttt; tugit-her. lilt't arte ofiti it-fcfrefrtd to as ''utolt ord i nan K The Sit(e Localtion Law requires different permits for o if 1611-47." certain size, e~~~g.. developments occupy-I 3 'I'lit orintlrate( u, its piubltshutd fii 1619. prts idtd if] part:.lIlt is projects ovet a ceaisieeg..dv op-rn cup du(elared lthat fii all c iccKs, ott's atid otltut plac's, about atid i ng 20 acre-s or more,56" Tht' law is administered bv tilet ttpoll salt wal[ I witc ill t cin ueb(i and flows. tfi- !'roprit'stit of Ilit' Board of Environmental Protection. laud adjos tiitgstll, ls% titttet h o ae akwir By, statute, mandatory, shoreland zoning is required thu Sea thxs nott uhf, abov'u a lsundted rods, anid not more, wbenv- by municipalities in areas wvitti n 2,50 feet of the high- eni lsatlit. titluy.ot nt3.txxv. I .Mailtie was adotitiedc to tftc Uno otilt (ittrMa It IS 1821. ''ott ait water mark.57 The Land Use Regulation Commission tqtttal ftoting w ilth tlit origittal startes.' 3 Stat. 541 4(182(t). is responsible, for planning, zoning and subdivision 15. (;onart5.joydait, 1017,%i(-.227.230.,77A. 938.939(1910);Baryrotts control in the unorganized (i.e., unincorporated) %. API(errinoit. 73 Mrt. +11I. 448S (1882). areas.56 I16. .Sntford v. limits. 123 Nl(t. 230. 122 A. 573 (1923). These reulatory tatutes re amongthe II cre laws 17. Mu. Rut.- Stat. Anti. ti t. 12. � 559. These regulaory statute are amo n g he I I corelaw 8 67 'Stat. 29; ctidifit-d at 42 t'.S.C. � 1301 ci seq. forming the basis of Maine's Coastal Program. The I l9. ('rnited Sztol-. '.. Maine, 420 U'.S. 515, 517-518 (1975). program. p~repared undt'r tht' federal Coastal Zone Naresauoylw nce t 99 set 'wesio h Management Act of I1972,"it-as appr~oved by the United [elnumerated or deseribt't] watersand submerged latnds ... utnless States in Septemiber 1978. The State Planning Office is it shall be, wsitht respect to arty given parcel or area, in any other persont or entity. bx virtue of aI %al id and effective instrument of the lead agency in adminislering the program. cottvcyancror byN operatioti of law.'' Mc. Re%. Stat. Ann. tit. I � 3. The enumerated and described areas include "[tlhc marginal sea to its outt'rmost lintits'' arid ''[tlhe high seas to whatever extent ACKNOWLEDGMENTS jurisdiction therein ma) buc-laimed by die [United Status._or Ut whatever extent mna~ fi recognided by nthe usages and customsoif intertiational law or by anya agrt'ument, international or other- The author is grateful to Robert G. Blakesley, natui- wise, to wlticht tlt Untited States . .. or this Starte mia' be a jai resources planner, State Planning Office, and Ken pa rtIy; . .. [arid] [aill] subm~ergedf lands, inClUding the subsurface Spalding, assistant resource administrator, Bureau of thereof, lying under said aforemeittioned waters." Id. � 2. Public Lands, Departmetit of Conservation, State of 20. Dantiois %. IParkei. 97 Me. 461.4~67, 54 A. I1I15. 11 18 (1903). .S~tou v. Il. Desert LIland Real E~state Co.. 84 Mu. 14. 17. 24 A. -129. 430 Maine, for prtosiding sonme of the soulrce materials cited (1891). in this articlt'. 21. Hogdurtn v. Gamrpbell, 411 A.2d 667. 672 o(1980); Whi/tmore v. Birowni. 100 et. 'l10t.61 A. 985, 987 (1905); freerrsan %. Lcti/hon, 90( Mu. 541. 5.15 (18947)~ Bitt if. SnIou v'. Alt1. 1,esert Isliirsd Hi-ti E state Co., supra, 8-1 Nit. at 18. 2-I A. at 430 (deed using boith the ''sit'' att] the ''shote'' was iiuii tocottvr' lthe tidelands as willas REFERENCES tue Uplantds). 22. Sve ''Maine's Publji ']I'rust Doetrlirte.' infra. 1. Alaiitc'.t Coastal Progtarn aitd Fista Enviyotnmental Impactf 23. Foir a brief disc tissioti of the Nolassachusvits rule, see S/tore anid Stalentitut 55. 58 (1978) [hercirtaftur citc'd as MCPI. L6'adt. Votl. 50. Nit. I. Jantitar) 1982. p. 1-I. 2. Id. at 58. 2-1. er-rivi/i %. 'rolrietor-s off Union ll/tarf.26 Nlc. (13S~tup.) 384. 395 3. Thel( M assahst-Iti~rt s BWi Goloti 's o rd inntice of 1641 g tiaran eed (18-17). the( figftt of natrgasitiot. fishing arid fowling.- Thse rights we-re 25). Id. ax 395`-396. reserved w I titl r li- otd ina~ it ,t ews amnte det iii 16-47 ito exiti ld 26. Seqoatittftt ooiitIrditicof16,17, s upiranote I ;si-i Pt ivate tip]lanil ownitis' titrs ito ithe adjarunt tidt-lands. Til l al1so Sirtjord %. I l' i ft.N .stira. 123 Mt 23(1. 122 A. 573. anti casi's colontiatl otdinranri is pa it otf ithe tcuritt~itt law of Maine. Sit- c utn1 irt Whiiittii'seu. tpu nmtot 3. iut 67. gutcirally J.- Whtitt lescy. Law' of i/ic .Seaqtore, Tidrwta let s anrd 27. Iit tli ps rc's iott sly mnitt iot it i 1981 di sta iti'qiiil tii gthe si's G neat Pu itd it Al a s.sir a iei ho iid MtlAa ine- (1932 ; Wanitt. Public tiit It-ii aridi rigIst% s ii fai lii t id i- aitd su [inerged lanrds. it is sta ted Ifightis III Mlain( h~aters, 17 NIt'. L. RI's.- 161 (19W5). float tlti- statuite 'sh111il rtt be (oisti tied to affect t]In' rules of law JULY 1984 19 Mlthliw ise inl fore clantigl. to atrt 1`nn liriI toin of fillItd or I 1 ? ighs isn Ille Neashi ore, 33 NI . I _ Re% 0J (I 1981). "A irnt-tit other land,, along. ... t he( ast imrplyintg thai sic It rules exist action filed by a litoral iwlier ii ithe (oistal town if Wells in Maine. Me. Rev. Siat. Ann. tit. 12, � 559. ogtatiraati that no stch puhlit' let reatitinal t ighlr Xists. 28. in Stale v. Vales.5 104 Me. 360, 3ti2. 71 A. 1018, 1019-10126(1908), it Althoutgh li te aca wrs dlismtissed at die trial 1vleti til pitxetliiral was Irel'd that it public caisemen t iii a street that terimiina ted at the grt in rds, r Iiis at te iipt it) exti title e int I ~tlli( flit (ittl e fot trshltie high-water mark witti laid out extentded watelivmrt %when there intidtatie, that th1w otnflitt Ntli'wt'i't jrii~ii'cdvUtloltiptiii 11,1iiil to- was "lihst'tuent11ly 88 feet oif a( Ttitti Otot i tlie Italer lyinrg la nd. lic ret reat ion aI use ott shori irl s. whitl ha .11 ready suinfat ed iii 29. Ft r a brief tdescr ipt ion of thetittetri tie, whit it oritigi na ted at coni- several otolir ta its, will si ort pie sent i svi- i iit th (iuris of nion law arid is based tin antecedents in early Romran civil law, Mainle.' lid. at 69-7() (tioittittes toitittedl. see S/tore and Beatch, Vol. 18, No. 1, October 1980, pp. 18-19. 10. Opinion )f the justices, supra, 137 A.2td at 607. .30. Iin Opinion of the Justices, supra, 437 A.2d 597, concerning the .1 . let. at 607-609. statuott iii w Iliii h the state rel inqt ui shedl an y public i trust iiiterest tilt -12. See ',Tidltlanrds' unrder Ti tle to Lanids Within ii le ( (astal previotisly filled tidearid submergedaiands, thejusticesexpressly Zone", supra. tieclitied to answer two tinestions relating to the trust posed by 413. King v. Young, supra, 121 Me. at 361, 129 A. ai 298-299. the governrtr: (1) "Does the State of Maine have a trost rt'sponsi- '14. Foir brief discuissionts itf the use of such do(ctrines bw ohi hr states, bility for Ilie beniefit oft the people of Maine in lands which are sceShoreanid Beach, Vol. -19, No. 2, Aprili 1981,li. 23 (Catlifotia ~): now or wtere formerly submerged utider territorial waters arid Viii. 19, Nit. 3, July 1981I, p. 16 (Floritla); Vol. 19,. Nit. 4, October great ponds [i.e.. ponds with art area of 10 acres or more] or were 1981, p. 28 (Texas); VotI. 50, No. 2, April 1982, p). 11 ( Ntw Jersey): tttrmerl y iii ert iala anrids?'' (2) "'if ite answer to QUestion I is in Vol. 50, No~. 3. Jul y 1982, pp. 16- 17, 19-21) (O( rcgt i); ad Vo1' I. 5 1, the affirmative, what are the rights of the teiseficiaries arid Nt). 3, July 1983, It. 13 (New Y'trk). respotrsibilities itt ite trustee with respect to the filled, sub- 45. Conitiert, supra note 39, 33 Me, L. Rev. at 85. merged atid intertidal lands impressed wvith the trust?'' Id. at -16. L.D. 1225, 109th Me. Le-gis., Ist Ness. (1979), as reitririted iii 599-600. Comment, supra litte 39. 33 Mle. L. Rev. a:t 98. Ihe statute in question itself expressly mentions the public 17. Ibid. trust. Me. Rev. Statl. Aim, tit. 12, � 599. Thejusticesdid recogitize 18. Robinsont v. Fred B. Hitggyins Co., 126 Me. 55, 135 A. 901 (1927). the existetce of the trust. 137 A.2d at 607. 1 owever, thev declined I 19. Ibid. to answer tite qutited quesitions because they said they "ha% e no 50. Li enising is carried out uttder rthe Wharves andtt WVirs Act, Me. (otnstitutiitnal authority to go beyond the itecessities of the Rev, Stat. Anti. tit. 38 � 1021 el seq. soletinn occasionr [for giving art advisory opinion outside the 51, Me. Rev. Stat. Attn. tit. 12, � 558. context of a regular case] atid give a general elucidation of our 52. Me. Rev. Slat. Attn. tit. 12. � 60712. individual viewsoti theso-called public trustdoctrineasapplied .53, Me. Rev. Stat. Atti. tit. 38, � -171 el seq. ISupp. 1983). l[liis law to) all present or fortner tide and submerged lands.' Id. at 61 1. was passed iii 1975 to re-place rthe Wetlands Cotttril AXct itt 1967, 31, Whittlesey, 5upra riore 3, at xxxvi. This orditiance was amended formerly Me. Rev. Slta. Ann. tit. 12, � 1701 et. seql. by the previously discussed ordinance of 1647, which contained a 5-I. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38. � 171 (Supp. 1963). Thle Alteration itt proviso assuring ''tle passage of boats or other vessels." .See Coastal Wetlatids Act defines ''ciastal wetlands.'' itt part, ats ''all 'Title to L-ands Within the Coastal Zone,"' supra. tidial anid stibtidal lands% inicludi ng all areas Iteltiw idtentifiable 32. 1'he public rights to fish arid fowl may have existed in Maine d lebris line left by tidal action, all arteas with vegcratiitr present even before the ordintance was applied to Maine in 1692. Conant thatt is tolerant itt salt water antd occurs primarily iti a salt wvater v. Jordan, supra, 107 Mle. at 238-242, 77 A. at 9410. habitat. artd any swamip, marsh. bog, beaclt. flat itr ottler cotitig- 33. Id. at 230. 77 A. at 939, uous lowlaitd which is stibject to tidal action.." let. � 172 34. For a brief disicussiorr of the Massachusetts public trust doctrine, (Supp. 1983). see Shtore and Beach, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1982. pp. 14-15. 55. Id. � -171 (SUPP. 1983). Thie act defines "cotastal sand dunes," in 35. Antdrews v. King. 12.1 Me. 361. 129 A. 298 (1925). The court also part, as "sartdtleposits withtin amarine beach systren above high uplteld tlte right of the passengers to cross the ridelatids going to tide including,. ... beach berms. frontual dutie ridges, back dune atid front the boat. areasarid otiter sand areas deposited by wave or wind action.'' Id. 36. State v. L~eatvitt, 105 Me. 76. 78, 72 A. 875. 877 (1909); Moulton v. � 472 (Supp. 1983), Libbey, 37 Mle. 4172 (18541. 56, Id. � 181 el seq. 37. State v. Lemar. 117 Me, 105, 87 A.2d 886 (1952). 57. Me. Rev. Stat. Anti.tit. 12. � 1811 et .eq. 38. .'lndrews v. King. s upra. 124 Me. 361. 129 A. 298. 58, Id. � 681 el sell. 39. Comment. Coastal Rec reation: Legal AlethIods for Securing Pub- 59. 16 U.S.C. � 1 151 el seq. 20 SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XVII: The Connecticut Approach BY PETER H. F. GRABER Attorney at Law San Francisco, California T O FOSTER maritime commerce during its early C. Submerged Lands days, Connecticut encouraged private owners of coastal property to erect wharves and piers across Connecticut has dominion and control over sub- adjacent publicly owned tidal flats.' merged lands in Long Island Sound waterward to its That public policy, reflected in many court deci- boundary with New York. sions,2 contributed to the intense industrial and com- mercial development of Connecticut's 583-mile coast.3 But during the past quarter of a century, there has DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES been a change of emphasis in the Constitution State's coastal law. To address environmental and other con- A. Upland/Tideland Boundary temporary concerns, statutes have been enacted that impose broad regulations on the use of tidal wetlands In Connecticut, as in most states, the high-water and waters.4 mark divides the private uplands from the public tide- lands. 4 However, the state's appellate courts have not explained how the location of this boundary is to be TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN determined. THE COASTAL ZONE For regulatory purposes, the state's Coastal Man- agement Act of 1978 refers to the mean high-water Uinder the Connecticut Coastal Management Pro- mark."5 It can be argued that this term should be inter- gram, the state's coastal area stretches seaward to the preted as the equivalent of the federal rule enunciated in limit of state jurisdiction in Long Island Sound.5 The the United States Supreme Court's 1935 Borax deci- program utilizes a two-tier approach. The first tier sion,'6 i.e., that the line is based on a mean of all high extends only a short distance landward from the shore- tides over an 18.6-year period. line,6 while the second tier is bounded by the inland limits of 36 coastal municipalities.7 Within the first tier, lands may be legally divided into B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.' in the Location of the Shoreline Connecticut follows the usual rule that the upland A. Uplands owner is, in general, entitled to the benefit of gradual accretion to his property.'7 -Title to the great majority of Connecticut's coastal This principle also has been applied to artificially uplands is in private hands.9 reclaimed lands. An 1870 decision states that upon rec- lamation of the tidal flats adjoining uplands, "the line of high water mark is changed and carried into B. Tidelands the harbor, and the [upland] owners' lands have gained the reclaimed shore by accretion; the principles govern- Upon the signing of the Declaration of Independ- ing the case being the same as those which prevail ence, Connecticut became the owner of the tidelands, where the sea recedes gradually by accession of soil to i.e., lands between the lines of mean high and low theland."' water.t' In contrast to Massachusetts and Maine, there had been no general extension of upland owners' titles to the adjoining tidelands by colonial authorities." ,,,,h. il a ..ris arriebr till .. .p.ule .r.io o th.sllalr law Although littoral owners theoretically can extend their and ..s la.. of the State of Collltctnicui .onmerning the lasal one. Spa, e linmiati n. prt'cludan in-depth analysisfolimany ot htheselopis or any disrussionof related matlers. title seaward by reclaiming tidal flats in front of their Tlhilrndthtoll r, l'sinlher ri-,dolollrctss4rilyrtleallhlr. plroperty,'2 filling of such areas is now subject to state of the authors ormTtrelployer. theOlfieof the Attorney General. Stateof ilurnia.co any other agenry of tihe State of Galilornia. C 1984 by Peter H. F. Graber. Itlr author also regulation. 13 asserts opyright prott lion tr tre first 16 arit Ivs in this seris. OCTOBER 1984 15 Under this view, the private littoral landowner could This language probably was unnecessary to the deci- theoretically enlarge his upland parcel by merely filling sion, but has raised questions about competing public the adjoining state-owned tidelands. Today, however, and private interests in the tidelands. In effect, the court the impact of this early opinion is modified by zoning first expanded the types of public rights in the tidelands restrictions and other police power regulations of coast- to many more uses than navigation but then said that al lands and waters. 19 except for navigation they were all subordinated to the A 1982 Connecticut Supreme Court case20 demon- littoral owner's use. strates that upland owners gaining title to accreted land Several subsequent decisions28 modified the impact may nevertheless lose that titletoapublicentity. Three of Orange v. Resnick to some extent. In one case, the storms between 1938 and 1955 washed away a sandspit court upheld an injunction prohibiting an upland between Long Island Sound and the mainland. Later, a owner from taking sand from the adjoining state- 200-foot-wide beach gradually formed in front of the owned tidelands and commercially selling it.29 How- upland owners' property. The court ruled that this was ever, the present scope of the public trust doctrine in accreted land; as such, the upland owners had title to it. Connecticut is uncertain because the sweeping lan- However, the court found that the town had main- guage in Orange has not been expressly overruled. tained the accreted land as a public beach for more than the statutory period of 15 years by posting lifeguards, cleaning it and providing a rest room. The court said PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS that this evidenced possession of "the disputed beach area in a manner that an owner of a public beach would Beaches are a limited resource in Connecticut; of the ordinarily follow."" Consequently, the court ruled that state's 583 miles of total shorefront, only 78.5 miles the town had acquired title by adverse possession of the (13.5%) are sandy beaches.30 Most of the uplands adjoin- accreted land. ing these beaches are owned by private parties (48.4 miles) or by beach associations (16.3 miles) that usually restrict access to the water across their uplands to resi- CONNECTICUT'S dents or association members.3' However, other mem- PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE bers of the public can gain lateral access to some of these beaches from nearby publicly owned beaches.32 The public trust doctrine, the common-law concept Given the relative scarcity of beaches as a resource assuring the public's right to use tidal waters for navi- and historical land-use patterns along the state's coast, gation, fishing and other purposes, has been judicially the Connecticut Coastal Management Program con- recognized22 but apparently not widely applied in Con- cludes that public access to beaches is "reasonable."33 necticut. Instead, the state has relied on its regulatory Nonetheless, it recognizes that such access could be authority under the police power to protect public improved through various methods.34 rights.23 Connecticut's appellate courts, unlike those in other While some appellate court decisions declare that the states,35 have not been called upon to rule on the appli- state owns the tidelands as a trustee for the public,24 cability of such legal theories as custom and implied others handed down during the 1800s and early 1900s dedication to expand public access to the shore. As emphasize the rights of private upland owners in mentioned above, however, a recent case does apply the adjoining tidal lands and waters.25 A 1920 case, Orange doctrine of adverse possession to assure public use of an v. Resnick,26 was perhaps the most extreme example of accreted beach area that otherwise would have been the subordination of public rights, except for naviga- privately owned.36 tion, to a private use of tidelands. In Orange, the state had deeded land between the mean high- and low-water marks to a town so that it PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS could be filled and used to create a public park. The town sued the private upland owner to restrain him from buildig a le bPrivate upland owners in Connecticut have enjoyed from building a large bathhouse extending from his greater littoral rights than their counterparts in some property across the tidelands down to the low-water other coastal states." As noted in the 1920 case of mark. Deciding in favor of the upland owner, the court Orange v. Resnick: stated: "... It may be that our law as to the private rights of ".. The statement may be found in many reported riparian owners is more liberal than that of some other cases that riparian rights must be exercised in subordi- jurisdictions. If so, it is probably due to the conforma- nation to the paramount rights of the public; but this tion of our shore bordering on Long Island Sound, generality is qualified by the fact that not all public which, in its sheltered parts, consists largely of tidal rights so-called in the shore below high-water mark are flats, quite useless for navigation, and in many places superior to the rights of the riparian owner. The public long occupied for manufacturing and commercial pur- rights of fishing, boating, hunting, bathing, taking poses...."38 shellfish, gathering seaweed, cutting sedge and of pass- The right of access to adjoining navigable waters is ing and repassing, are necessarily extinguished, pro tanto [to that extent], by any exclusive occupation of the "fundamental littoral right" of upland owners in soil below high-water mark on the part of a riparian Connecticut.39 This right is the basis for what is charac- owner. The only substantial paramount public right is terized as the owners' exclusive franchise-or special the right to the free and unobstructed use of navigable privilege-of reclamation of adjacent tidelands and waters for navigation....27 wharfing out.40 16 SHORE AND BEACH In the early days of statehood, private owners of into municipal coastal programs. Thirty-one coastal uplands wereencouraged to build wharvesand pierson cities and towns have been developing municipal the public tidelands to accommodate maritime corn- programs.56 merce.4' This public policy helped spur coastal devel- oplnent. By 1872 the harbor at New Haven had become so busy that one of the first restraints on these owners ACKNOWLEDGMENTS was enacted: a law creating a board of harbor commis- sioners empowered to regulate the length of wharves. The author is grateful to Arthur J. Rocque, Jr., direc- The state's high court upheld, as a valid exercise of the tor, and Marianne Latimer, senior environmental ana- police power, the board's establishment of a harbor line lyst, Coastal Area Management Program, Department beyond which wharves could not extend.42 of Environmental Protection,State of Connecticut, for Later, private littoral rights were further abridged providing some of the source materials cited in this through various methods, such as municipal zoning43 article. and state laws regulating filling, the erection of struc- tures, and other activities in tidal waters and wetlands.44 REFERENCES 1. Tremont, The Status of Riparian Rights in Connecticut, 33 LEASING AND REGULATION Conn. B.J. 430, 433-434 (1959). OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS 2. See, e.g., Simons v. French, 25 Conn. 345, 351-352 (1856): "It is true that such right of wharfage originates in, and is derived A. Leasing from, the ownership of the adjoining upland, and it was deemed by our courts to be attached thereto, undoubtedly from motives of general policy and convenience, and perhaps because in the early The state commissioner of agriculture may lease cer- settlement of the state, the establishment of such a principle tain areas for the purpose of planting and cultivating would be an inducement to persons owning upland, to erect on shellfish.45 the adjoining flats, wharves, and other conveniences for the accommodation of commerce, when the colony was unable to build them as its own expense." B. Regulatory Functions See also cases cited in note 12 infra. 3. State of Connecticut Coastal Management Program and Final Although some restrictions on the use of tidal lands Environmental Statement 11-1, 11-3, 11-296 (1980) [hereinafter and waters had been imposed earlier, Connecticut's cited as CCMP]. 4. See "Regulatory Functions" under "Leasing and Regulation of most sweeping legislation in this field has occurred Coastal Zone Landsand Waters," infra. during the past quarter-century. These regulatory pro- 5. CCMP, supra note 3, at S-I, 11-28. The program is based in part grams reach beyond the control of navigation and on the Connecticut Coastal Management Act of 1978, Conn. Gen. encompass environmental and other concerns. Stat. � 29a-90 el seq., which defines the coastal area. Id. � 22a-94. Regulation of the erection of structures and the 6. This tier is bounded by a continuous line delineated by a 1,000- foot linear setback measured from the mean high-water mark in placement of fill in tidal and coastal waters is now coastal waters, or a 1,000-foot linear setback measured from the carried out by the state commissioner of environmental inland boundary of state-regulated tidal wetlands (see "Regula- protection under a statute originally enacted in 1963.46 tory Functions" under "Leasing and Regulation of Coastal Zone Certificates or permits must be obtained from the corn- Lands and Waters," infra), or the interior contour elevation of the 100-year frequency coastal flood zone, whichever is farthest missioner before these activities are undertaken.4 This inland. CCMP, supra note 3, at S-, 11-28-29. The Connecticut curtailment of littoral owners' rights has been judi- Coastal Management Act of 1978 refers to this landward line as cially upheld as a proper exercise of the state's police the "coastal boundary." Conn. Gen. Stat. ��22a-93(5),22a-94(b). )power�." 7. CCMP, supra note 3, at S-l, 11-28. The commissioner of environmental protection is 8. This classification is used for convenience and consistency with other articles in this series. also empowered to regulate tidal wetlands, such as salt 9. The uplands abutting about 80 percent of the total shoreline are marsh and swamps, under a separate statutory scheme privately owned. CCMP, supra note 3, at 11-297. passed in 1969.49 This law requires permits for drain- 10. Bloomv. Water Resources Comm'n, 157Conn. 528,254A.2d884 ing, dredging, filling, erection of structures and certain (1969); Shorefront Park Imp. Ass'n v. King 157 Conn. 249. 253 A.2d 29 (1968); Rochester v. Barney, 117 Conn. 462, 169 A. 45 other enumerated activities50 in low-lying wetlands.s5 (1933). The statute calls for the issuance of maps depicting the 11. For brief discussions of the law in Massachusetts and Maine, boundaries of wetlands and the promulgation of regula- respectively, see Shore and Beach, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1982, tions.s2 pp. 13-14, and Vol. 52, No. 3, July 1984, p. 17. Another law prohibits the removal of sand and gravel 12. Norwalk v. Podmore, 86 Conn. 658, 86 A. 582 (1913); Ocker- hausen v. Tyson, 71 Conn. 31,40 A. 1041 (1898); Ladies' Seamen's from lands beneath tidal and coastal waters unless a Friend Soc'y v. Halstead, 58 Conn. 144, 19 A. 658 (1889); Lock- state permit is obtained.53 wood v. New York & N.H.R.R. Co., 37 Conn. 387 (1870). Subse- The state's Coastal Management Act of 1978,54 aug- quent decisions seem to have distinguished these cases to some *entin mentioned above, * . . and other pre- extent. State v. Knowles-Lombard Co., 122 Conn. 263, 188 A. 275 menting the statutes mentioned a bove and other pre- (1936); Rochester v. Barney, supra, 117 Conn. 462, 169 A. 45. viously enacted laws, serves as the basis for the compre- . 13. See "Regulatory Functions" under "Leasing and Regulation of hensive Connecticut Coastal Management Program. Coastal Zone Lands and Waters," infra. The state Department of Environmental Protection is 14. See, e.g.,Rochev. Town of Fairfield, 186Conn. 490,442A.2d911 the lead agency administering the program, which was (1982). Lane v. Harbor Comnm'rs, 70 Conn. 685, 40 A. 1058 (1898). approved by the Federal Government in September 15. Conn. Gen. Stat. � 22a-94(b) (emphasis added). 16. Borax Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10 (1935). 1980.55 Local governments have a major role through 17. Roche v. Town of Fairfield, supra, 186 Conn. 490, 442 A.2d 911; incorporation of the statewide policies and standards Rochester v. Barney, supra, 117 Conn. 462. 169 A. 45. OCTOBER 1984 17 18. Lockwood v. New York & N.H.R.R. Co., supra, 37 Conn. 387, Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. � 22a-92(a)(6), (c)(l)(J), (c)(l)(K). Id. at 391. See also Ockerhausen v. Tyson, supra, 71 Conn. 31, 40 A. II-158-159. 1041. 35. As to the applicability of the doctrine of custom, see Shore and 19. In Poneleit v. Dudas. 141 Conn. 413, 106 A.2d 479 (1954), it was Beach, Vol. 49, No. 2, July 1981, p. 16 (Florida). and Vol. 50, No. held that a city's zoning regulations could be validly applied toa :2, July 1982, pp. 16-17, 19-20 (Oregon); as to the theory of dedica- previously water-covered area that had been reclaimed and had tion, see Shore and Beach, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 1981, p. 23 become part of the private owners' land. See also "Regulatory (California), Vol. 49, No.4, October 1981, p. 28 (Texas), and Vol. Functions" under "Leasing and Regulation of Coastal Zone 51, No. 3, July 1983, p. 13 (New York). Lands and Waters," infra. 36. Roche v. Touwn of Fairfield, supra, 186 Conn. 490, 442 A.2d 911. 20. Rochev. Town ofFairfield, supra, 186 Conn. 490, 442, A.2d 911. By holding that the town had acquired title b, adverse posses- 21. 442 A.2d at 917. sion, the court found it unnecessary to determine the applicabil- 22. Lane v. Harbor Comm'rs, supra, 70 Conn. 685, 694, 40 A. 1058. ity of the theory of implied dedication. 442 A.2d at 919 n. 15. See 23. See, e.g., Poneleit v. Dudas, supra, 141 Conn. 413, 106 A.2d 479 text accompanying notes 20 and 21 supra. (zoning regulations'applicability to limit uplandowners' rights 37. California case law, for example, has sometimes limited the upheld). For a brief discussion of some regulations, see "Regula- littoral rights of private owners of uplands. See Shore and Beach., tory Functions" under "Leasingand Regulation of Coastal Zone Vol. 49, No. 2, April 1981, p. 23. Lands and Waters," infra. 38. Orange v. Resnick, supra, 94 Conn. at 579. 24. See, e.g., Burrows v. Gallup, 32 Conn. 493,500 (1865); Brower v. 39. Id. at 573. l'akeman, supra, 88 Conn. 8, 80 A. 913. 40. Ibid. 25. See, e.g., Norwalk v. Podmore, supra, 86 Conn. 658, 86 A. 582; 41. See, e.g., Simmons v. French, supra, 25 Conn. 346. As one legal Ockerhausen v. Tyson, supra, 71 Conn. 31, 40 A. 1041; Ladies' writer put it: "A seafaring state in a young nation with little Seaman's Friend Soc'y v. Halstead, supra, 58 Conn. 144, 19 A. public money could only thrive through the expenditures of 658; Lockwood v. New York & N.H.R.R. Co., supra, 37 Conn. private capital. Private wharfage... was encouraged to such an 387. For a brief discussion of upland owners' rights, see "Private extent that the law which permitted one legally to build a wharf Littoral Rights," infra. upon public land did not consider the abutting landowner as 26. 94 Conn. 573, 109 A. 864(1920). without interest in the soil and the title in the wharf was con- 27. 94 Conn. at 578, 109 A. at 865-866. Orange v. Resnick was sidered to vest in him." Tremont, supra note 1, 33 Conn. B.J. at strongly criticized by one legal commentator as follows: "Under 433-434. [thatcase],oneholdingariparianfranchise[oftherighttowharf 42. State v. Sargent, 45 Conn. 358 (1877). In Lane v. Harbor out or to access to navigable waters] would have almost unlim- Comm'rs,supra, 70Conn. 685,40A. 1058, the court, pointingout ited privileges upon the land of the state unless it could be shown that the privilege of wharfing out was qualified, held that a that hisactivity would obstruct navigatioin. The public's right- permit to build a wharf could be revoked at any time before indeed, a right of sovereignty-which historically was restric- construction was begun. tively granted to the abutting riparian proprietor on a condi- 43. Poneleit v. Dudas, supra, 141 Conn. 413, 106 A.2d 479. tional basis-becomes completely extinguished. Here is an 44. See "Regulatory Functions" under "Leasing and Regulation of instance of the dog walking the man." Tremont, supra note 1,33 Coastal Zone Lands and Waters," infra. Conn. B.J. at 436. 45. Conn. Gen. Stat. � 26-194. 28. Poneleit v. Dudas. supra, 141 Conn. 413, 106 A.2d 479; State v. 46. Id. � 22a-359 et seq. Knowles-Lombard Co., supra, 122 Conn. 263, 188 A. 275. 47. Id. � 22a-361. 29. State v. Knowles-Lombard Co.,supra, 122 Conn. 263, 188A. 275. 48. See, e.g., Hotchkiss Grove Ass'n v. Water Resources Conm 'n, 161 30. CCMP, supra note 3, at 11-298. Conn. 50, 282 A.2d 890 (1971); Bloom v. Hater Resources 31. Id. at 11-299. Comm'n, supra, 157 Conn. 528, 254 A.2d 884. 32. Lateral access is possible because the state, in general, owns the 49. Conn. Gen. Stat. �22a-28 et seq. The law is described in Corn- lands lying below the high-water line, even if the uplands adjoin- ment, The W'etlands Statutes: Regulation or Taking?, 5 Conn. L. ing the beaches are in private ownership. The Connecticut Coast- Rev. 64 (1972). al Management Program document states: "[T]he total amount 50. Conn. Gen. Stat. � 22a-29. of beach [below the high-water line] directly accessible to the 51. The law defines the word "wetlands" in terms of the growth or general public from state fee-owned or unrestricted municipal capability of growth of certain specified plants. It also states that beaches is at least 42 miles or 54% of the total length of beach the word means "those areas which border on or lie beneath tidal resource in Connecticut."CCMP, supra note3, at 11-300. Munic- waters, such as, but not limited to banks, hogs, salt mnarsh, ipalitiesown22.7 miles(28.8%ofthetotal)ofsandy beaches, and swamps, meadows, flats, or other low lands subject to tidal the state 7.5 miles (9.5'%). Id. at 11-299. action, including those areas now or formerly connected to tidal 33. Id. at 11-300. waters, and whose surface is at or below an elevation of one foot 34. Id. at 11-300-301. Four major ways of improving access are above local extreme high water." Ibid. recommended: (I) developing underutilized state-owned beach 52. Id. � 22a-30. Tidal wetlands regulations became effective in areas; (2) increasing the capacity of, and improving access to, August 1980. existing state-owned beach facilities; (3) acquiring and develop- 53. Id. � 22a-383 et seq. ing new state beach facilities; and (4) "requiring the provision or 54. Conn. Gen. Stat. � 22a-90 et seq. improvement of access through applicable state regulatory and 55. The program was prepared under the federal Coastal Zone Man- planning programs." Id. at 11-301. See also the recreation and agement Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. � 1451 et seq. beach access policies from the Connecticut Coastal Management 56. CZAI Information Exchange, p. 30 (April 1984). 18 SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XVIII: The Virginia Approach BY PETER H. F. GRABER At-torney at Law San Francisco, California OG ISLAND, along Virginia's Eastern Shore, was within the state's portion of the Chesapeake and the setting for an unusual legal battle pitting an extends seaward to the limits of the state's j arisdiction environmental organization, which had bought in the Atlantic. most of the barrier island to protect it from man's intru- Coastal zone lands may be legally classified as sions, against members of the public who wanted to use uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.9 its beaches and tidal marshes for recreational purposes.' In a 1982 decision that may affect public and private property rights along much of the Commonwealth of A. Uplands Virginia's 5,000-mile tidal shorelines the state Supreme Court breathed new life into an ancient legal concept, Along Virginia's Atlantic coast, many stretches of the the commons,3 by holding that the public is entitled to uplands immediately adjoining the shoreline are pub- use the island's beaches and marshes for fishing, licly owned, either by the Federal Government (e.g., the fowling and hunting. The court reached its conclusion southern portion of Assateague Island National Sea- on the basis of statutes dating back to 1780 that pre- shore, which extends into Maryland, and several served certain coastal areas as a common. national wildlife refuges) or by the commonwealth While history played a dramatic role in the Hog (e.g., False Cape State Park near the North Carolina Island case, contemporary ecological concerns over the border). The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit envi- preservation of wetlands and coastal sand dunes4 are ronmental organization, owns all or part of 13 barrier among the major factors behind the Old Dominion islands.'0 State's efforts to complete the development of its pro- Private parties have title to virtually all the uplands posed Coastal Resources Management Program.5 The abutting the waters of Chesapeake Bay and the tidal state hopes to gain Federal Government approval of the rivers and streams in the coastal Lone. However, marshes program during 1985.6 and other wetlands within these privately owned par- Environmental concerns also prompted Virginia to eels are extensively regulated under the state Wetlands enter into a 1983 agreement establishing the Chesa- Act of 1972.1" peake Executive Committee "to assess and oversee the implementation of coordinated plans to improve and protect the water quality and living resources of the B. Tidelands Chesapeake Bay estuarine system."7 Under a Virginia statute enacted in 1819,12 the titles of private landowners of uplands adjoining tidewater TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN were generally extended down to the low-water mark. THE COASTAL ZONE While most tidelands are now privately held, an unde- termined portion of the tidal shoreline that historically ;\ll of Tidewater Virginia--which comprises 29 per- had been designated as or used by the public ;is a coin- cent of the commonwealth's land area-constitutes the mon remains in state ownnership.'3 Virginia coastal zone as defined in the proposed Coastal The Virginia Colony had not made a blanlket grant of Resources MIanagement Program. The zone embraces all tidelands to the owners of the adjoining uplands all noni-federally owned lands in the state along the such as occurred under the IMassachusetts Bay Colony's shorelines of the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay and ordinance of 16 17.14 Nevertheless. one legal coirnenta- the tidal rivers. It encompasses the lands and waters tor believes there is evidence that the Virginia Colony "routinely granted private title both to the tidal shore and to portions of the beds below the low water ,, J 1f . 1t.l~[ t111 iii)11..11,1, Ih, ' ,,,, J .1 ,,tih', Ill, ,II ,I lllllllldl tt'~I; [ hlll . rl~l R' .1 I tli ' ( Ill; ct"ll'5 .,..lli. ........,,,, L,," t I. (. .......... ...,,,,,t ... . .... . ...,t . ,l,,,I . Upon the signing of the Declaration of lndepend- %,te I11,... I,,,, 1,., ,,, zI.,,lt, 1 r,..,ence, the Commonwealth of Vir.. ginia became the owner ,, s....Al,,,, ,, ,lly .l.ll.l. i . . ...,, ...l u.,. o t. -ti. of all previously ungranted tidelands.'" In 1780 the new hzdlt- l { d,1,lll .l. ,11> .lll . t l :.ll' s lit 5 - ll t' 51,111' , 11 01ta.-' 1985 I ,* ' l'l IPt' . (..ltb r. II �I, . ... ...U....i,',Kh111 1,,,,1 l a L. i 7 .I l ilt itllt%. state prohibited the grant of a SHORE AND BEACH 'all urt aIpro)pt iaed lanids olil tie Iha (or Clhtsap)Iakc, nit w inds, o0 othtl ci c(umstantces," as distiniguished forn tile sea Shore, or onl tIlhe s hoics of a ny rier 01 (I ee'k ill tI( thlt spring or ceap tit de.2 famir ai parts (If tiis (o(lfllnllwteaitl, lt llich have rv - In 1972 tle con tell)orary codiled version of tihe 1819 niati-l tiriglanitetl bIN tilt folillte govttirrifil(it anid stailute was anlettled to relMer to tlt "mtnean low-water llih( tle been sed1 ( ;.. Honlrllllo to all tlregonld people makl ."'' It renains unc rtain whetlhel tlte. (court will do efiine "nearn" in tellms of a tidal datun based on an T'he 1819 act, whilt extending plivate upland owineTs' 18.6-yveal aeltage as the I'.S. S lSupreme Coutl did w ith title.s to etlnbira adjoining tidelands, preserved state regald to highi wlatel.:' ownership) of coastal areas thenl used as a common.'l In 1873 all thi Atlantic shole still oowned bL tie conmilrn)n- wealtil, whether previously used as a comnmon or not, C. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location of was leservtdl forn grant to privale parties."' the Shoreline A curietIl statute, declaratory of existing laiw, plo- rides that "[a]11 tihe beds of the bays, rivels, creeks atnd l'he low-waterl r:tk, as thr' t printipal )ropl(ltt tlhrshol es of tlte sea ... not convlletd by spectial grant or bc undasl sel);pratilg privntle at ll puIblic lands, shifts coIlpa( t ac(oldilng to law, siall cont inue and remaint wi tit graduatl, i l)cr(ctpeti )1 a: ci etion anrd erosionll. thilt' piopt ty of the Coinimonrwealth of Virginia ...'."" As in malny otlhel states, erosion and flooding are of TIhe previously mentioned 1982 Hog Island decision, concern in Virginia. A statuteenllpowe rs counties, cities tracing tile history of legislation on this subject, con- or towns to construct "a dam, levee, seawall or other cludes: "Thus, the reservation from grant of common stiucture or device, to prevelnt ... tidal erosion, lands made in 1780, and extended to include all of the flooding or inundation ... ."" Other laws create the Atlantic shore in 1873, continues to the present day."2' Public Beach Conservation and Development Commis- sion, one of whose duties is to address erosion prob- lems,34 and tile Virginia Beach Erosion Commission, C. Submerged Lands ,lwhose "general purpose ... is to stop, impede or correct erosion along tile Atlantic coast in tile City of Virginia In gener-al, \irginia ouwns the submerged lands lying Beac-h... ." waterward of tihe low-water marlk.22 Tihe federal Sub- merged Lands Act of 195321 confirmed the common- VIRGINIA'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE wealth's title to such lands within a 3-geographical- In many of the other coastal states, the public trust mile strip of tilt Atlantic coast, but its claim to the area doctrine36 is the legal theory invoked by the courts to beyond that line was rejected by the United States protect the public's right to use tidal iwaters and the Supreme Court in 1975.24 lands beneath them. In Virginia, an argument might be made that a provision on the conservation of natural resources, added to the state Constitution in 1971, .would support a broader application of this doctrine by DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES the commonnwealth's courts.37 However, as demonstrated by Bradford v. N'ature A. Upland/Tideland Boundary Consena nry,38 the 1982 decision involving Hog Island's beaches and marshes, the Virginia Supreme Court Although the low-water line generally divides public favors tile commons concept39 as a means of protecting and private ownership of tide-flowied lands in Virgin- public rights. ia,2, the state's attorney general takes the position that Both the public trust doctrine and the commons con- the high-water mark is the boundary along those parts cept evolved under English common law, and while of tie Atlanticcoast where thecommonwealth owns thle they are distinct, their practical effect is similar.40 "shores of the sea."26 As mentioned above, the newly independent Com- monwealth of Virginia passed a 1780 act prohibiting the grant of previously ungranted shores "which have B. Tideland/Submerged Land Boundary been used as common to all the good people there- of ..." However, the statute did not define the terms Inl 1819 the Virginia General Assembly departed front "shores" and "common." One legal commentator has the usual common-law rule that private upland titles concluded that tile 1780 act's purpose was "to protect extend only to the high-water mark by enacting a sta- the recognized privilege of the general public, espe- tute providing in part: cially the poor, to fish from certain 'unappropriated "...[H]ereafter the limitsorbounds of the several tracts lands on the .. . shores.' "42 He has interpreted the of land lying on the Atlantic ocean, the Chesapeake bay, geographical extent of the legislatively protected com- and the rivers and( creeks thereof within this Common- mon broadly: wealth, shall extenrd to ordinary low water mark, ''st' of the shot, for fishing in.voles launci.ing boats, As a result of this 1819 statute, the state Supreme lhaulirng sein nets, and casting lines into tile surf. These Court has held that even when the express terms of a activities, however, require land above the high water grant extend only to tlhe high-water mark it is legally mark. The language of tile 1780 Act referring to 'lands presumed to include tihe lands down to the low-water on ilte... shores' must mean, theil, that thecommonls Ito mark.l2 A 1919 case construed the term "low-water be lestrved tonsisted of short and a portion of the mat k" to mean "normal, natural, usual, customary, or adjoining uplands. Mloreovel, shlotes used for fisirlig ordinary low water, uninflluenced by special seasons, likely would have been tidal flats and not marshes."43 JANUARY 1985 9 An 1819 statute, also discussed above,44 apparently tine state's Constitution and stat utes sitlle that 1932 broadened both the geographical area treated as a decision." comnton and the types of uses protected there. Although this act extended upland owners' title to the low-water mark, it expressly preserved for public use lands "now PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS used as a colnmon."45 This language suggests that shores that were a common as of 1819 would be pro- IIt Bradford v. Nature Conservancy,'2 the Virginia tected even if they had not been used in that manner Suprellle Court plreserved public rights of fishing, when the 1780 statute was passed.46 In addition, it has fowling alnd hunting on the Atlantic Ocean shore of been argued that the 1819 act preserved the public uses Hog Island that had been used as a coalnilon before of fowling and bunting in marshes as well as fishing in 1780. But at the same time the court effectively limited the tidal flats.47 public access to the beaches. By holding that private WVhile some later legislation weakened the common roads to and along the beaches had not been imlpliedly rights,48 an 1888 statute provided that dedicated to the public,63 the court took a different "[All unappropriated marsh or meadow lands lying on position thail its counterparts in California and the easterln shore of Virginia, which have remained Texas."6 ungranted, and which have been used as a common by The Virginia tribunal narrowly construed the doc- the people..., shall continue as such common, ... [and] trine of implied dedication by holding that there had the people ... may fish, fowl, or hunt on any such ... been no formal accetance by the county government of lanlds."'' been no formal acceltance by the county goverment of This act, which fails to define "marsh or meadow the roads." Citing al 1851 case,61 the court stated that lands," remains in effect today, with only slight what may amount to a dedication of land to public use chanlges.50 Another current law provides: in an urban area will not accomplish that result in a "All the [ungranted] beds of the bays, rivers, creeks and rural area. the shores of the sea ... shall continue and remain the It is interesting to speculateabout wlether the court's property of the Colnmonwealth of Virginia, and may be holding was influenced by the fact that the roads were used as coimmnon by all the people ... for the purpose of owned by Hog Island's principal property owner, The fishingand fowling, and of takingand catchingoysters Nature Conservancy, whose "avowed purpose ... is to and other shellfish, ... ."' preserve the barrier islands in their natural state by In 1982, in Bradford v. Nature Conservancy,52 the limiting intrusions by man."67 The court noted that Virginia Supreme Court interpreted the 1780, 1819 and "[a]s part of its effort to protect the [island's] ecol- 1888 commons statutes. The dispute arose when The ogy . . ., the Conservancy banned the use of all motor Nature Conservancy, owner of substantial portions of vehicles"68 on its property. Hog Island, a barrier island, denied members of a hunt- In another context, implied dedication might be ing club access to the Conservancy's lands.53 The court more acceptable to the court. Indeed, one legal com- "held that all of the Hog Island marshes are commons; mentator has concluded that, despite the Bradford deci- any original Commonwealth grants of portions of the sion, "the theories of dedication and prescription offer beach, if made after 1780, were void; any such grants much more hope" than the public trust doctrine and made before 1780 passed valid title, subject, however, to concept of custom as methods for establishing access a public right of use for fishing, fowling, and hunting; right on Virginia's tidelands.69 and no rights of commons extended to the up- lands. ."5 In holding that any grant of Hog Island's beaches PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS after 1780 was void, the Supreme Court relied on one of its earlier decisions55 and accepted the trial court's find- In addition to enjoying the benefit of accretion to ing that the island's beaches "had been used as a com- their property,70 private owners of land adjoining tidal mon for over 200 years."56 waters in Virginia have a number of other rights. Case The Bradford decision reaffirmed the vitality of the law has long recognized the landowners' right of access ancient commons concept in Virginia. However, one to the navigable portion of such waters and the right to significant difficulty with applying theconcept to areas wharf out, subject to state regulation.7' other than Hog Island is that "no one knows the Riparian rights72 also are defined by legislation. For numberof miles of shoreline and the number of acres of example, a statute allows riparian owners, under cer- marsh that are state owned or subject to common tain limited circumstances, to fill and to erect private rights."57 piers for noncommlercial purposes.73 Other laws give The public trust doctrine, broadly applied by courts these landowners the right to mine sand and gravel,74 in some othercoastal states, has been narrowly construed and the right to apply for an exclusive assignment of in Virginia. Navigation is the only public right pro- half an acre of oyster grounds.75 tected by the trust, according to language in a 1932 case, Commonwealth v. City of Newport News.58 Fishing, hunting and bathing apparently are uses beyond the LEASING AND REGULATION OF limited scope of the state's trust doctrine.59 Altllough COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS concluding that "the public trust theory is likely to remain dormant,"60 one legal commentator writes that A. Leasing "a contemporary Virginia court might well interpret The commotlwealth's Marine Resources Conmmis- the public trust more broadly" because of changes in sion, subject to statutory limitations, is empowered to la SHORE AND BEACH lt'�sc iw beds)~l of ((1 lainl stalf(-ol)vittd waters for file rorN piogi anis ft bet iricti poratud ii (lth- proposed Vii - p iospetiring for and rciircval of oil, gas anid other ginia Coastal Resourcces Management Priograni. Thet tlinner al s.1 CommonwealIthi of 1i igini a, afir i having terminatred irs Whil t. if sra re c onstiit ii onal p1 oxisionl prohi il fis Of efortIs lo gainI f cdt I a] a ppovalI of at progra. I inI 1979, is leasi ng as well as the sale of ''natural oysitr beds, rot ks, now, hropinrg to obtain rr suc appi oval in I 985.97 Virginia and sholu~ s,'' it pertui s tlie legislatuie to "define anid arid .eor gia are pit-serr nv the on lN Atlantic Seaboard deter nii itre sue I I [areas] by surveys or or Iherwise. "I' Starl- states withlout federally approved coastal prograrris. rites autholitci tire- leasing of tilte beds of otheri Lida] wvaters for oystering aftid t:lamming.71 ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS B. Regulatory functions Thua~ire atirhor is grateful to Kcithr Buirrenran, adminis- (Coastal Io ior landi~s ard x(1 aters are regula red under r rartoi, Con iri I oil rIlle Eiririonmntcii, arid Frederick S. rut ee p]im ipre al statuitoryN scherles: (1I) tile subaqueous Fisirer assistar i at ittnc\' gencial, Commonwealth of lan1ds rutrgtrrtprog-r,9()te Wetlands Act8li Virgintia, for pi ovidinig sorrie of the Souc C material arid (3) rilit Corstal I Pri mary Sand Dune Pr otectiori cite-d ill tlris art (ItI. Under Sect ion 62.1-3 of the Virginia Code, the Marine Rc'sources Commrissionr is a uthorized to regu- REFERENCES late thet use of state-owned bottorniands through a per- millring system. Except for certain enumerated activi- r. Bt~adfi k Natuue(0 C' erwiia,u 221 Va. I 8l, 2.4t S.L.2d 866 ties, permits art'( requiredI for "i'the taking and use of It 982i. lin ihistast, 'lItie Nattoe (inist'ianttc a cmrfim- miaterial, thfe placement of wharves, bulkheads, dredg- toillcti'ttut 0 olgaiai'iti l, %Vjs sutei bN I8 pul~stilts whoi virlul oxinid faint fill lit, islandii or h1.1d fiittttd, tistic' i of (ni~td tIleI'i. rugt andfill ' Tire commission has approved sub)- ' I fi (oiittitiitisc'.ttb1 ofI Vitgitiid tliii' jiiie -isc'tl as a plaintifft. aqueous guidelines to amplify the stat ute. Fil . b ict- difsi iss'itti of (tic (ast' atid rille SidlUits jimSoli-'d st- lIn 1972 the Wetlands Act" wvas passed, putting the' I Idt'tLlIrdts 1HItVI Ii' tilt (ii L1tilts %%itji fi' 1CO)AStatl Zone' and pri marN an thority and 'iiitaiative, for wetlands protec- -V~i tgitIi;ls% Pul'iit I [lnst 1Don Iin .*, mini.n tiori not) in a statec-level agency created n tat'fo 5110 purpct'ittiot .ttCAse,~ti~se ~~~~~~~~~~~~~plISIfort- tIre pupoe stibshlitl11 l0b. ItIt'Li Mwe IMIe land[L O Ill Ltftc Sidltid.t (la IintItIg but1 Ill iS localities: Cities, counties anid towns."11 Tire Iht itte id hut rigilt to tist' lotads 1ttttougti i1t G) oiscriain ' statute Is appilicable throughout Tidew.ater Virginia.85 plopume t)I Ioi t)ititi o filefil tilt- 6va' itcttcs and tinarsttcs alleged Iii As aniendced in 1982, the act regulates both ''vegetated Itt miimii situ piop1 t-jiN ..\titif' Cont.iri-aw ItY . MwhiitponiL'( werlands''86 and *'nrionegerated wetlands.''" (hi, lilt., .f 19 V.oii ~0. a. I1976),Treid Iin part, 5711t.2d I291., modifiedf on rehica Ii mg 57 F.2d 873 (411h Cii . 1978), (ert. Al though emphasizing county or clity control through " de-iled, 4:i91'uS. 1(117 OI lict 'e out I of-Appecals for Iitte Fourrf tire issuance of permits for activities other than those Ctuit(ItittIiif~i ttitt115'tt odbnddntrt specTified in a uniform local wet lands zoning ordi- ott its tiglt to05 Itim eile t iastsli'~iectte~eiit nanee,"I the act sets forth statewide standards: Stidle u (Oll lst. (I) Welands f prinat ~ 'ologk l signfialle t' sall tit-c Atlawiit Oi ctt, Owtc'alk'akt Bin, and Stull tidatt risers as rtit- rist be altere-d slo that the( ecological systemns inl teluItiit.apttaNno ,,tkadJtis tit 'r~~i ;a we-t-lands ale utinvasota blN d ist u rbed; [artd I atIr Monugrmrl ai'eiei IV ougraimi Dco ii eiei I (Au~g. t 5., 1 983) ''(2) Ieeitonii .10 t(e naxitnun extent practical, [uietc'iiahvit jtvd as tDiahf VCRNIVJ. T'tst'saite's Attattit stiotetini si tal e U it- c en t rat d ti wet anrds of lesser eool ogicalI isia l o i tO t0tti Its Ic ttg. o ~ ilt it0t(i tsisl o tottctet 1 9. sigtiifieattc t. . . andI inl areas . . . apart from thle I 981, %Nith Kc'tleiiin titatiiisutt G)cttt1itissjioi olt the wetl lands.' ' Lt~ioitttititeti, (itintiittiwutili of V'ilgi,'ti.. Tire Main e Rt'sou rces Commission has promulgated 3. For a titjif nit zoduttjiiti li h o tl t ttttscltlp i o/ nte39 Ialid ICXtlitit itidg- teioiic V irgittid'S Pilitic Irtst Doc - guidelines that must be considered in applying thetue" standards ."" *I. Rit a bric't disc ussniti of existintg w(-tlatIds andc duites rilatiagc'- In ltire Coastal Prinmarv Sand Dune Protection Act,"' nittit prctgiatls, sic ''RC'gci~Uttl N - littu litis'' uiitlci- "''Lasinig 'atid passed ili 198(1, tile Ic-gislature declared that ''[ijirrp RC Ulaicti (ift Goasulit Zone Laltds JtitaI(i s' ~fa p- 5. 'Iflt plpoe pi igiaiii is bcitig liltpalcdt i1idc't itil tc'dctat (~aist- piopriawt'development on . . sandclunes . .. may lead to al Zotie Mautagitticuit ALc tof 1972. ats ;uivittudcd, I6 Oi S.C. � 1 -151 el increased sliorel in ci'rosion,-coastal flooding, damage sDeq. lit Ntlu% 1982 V'igiiiia, witt ti had nt imipt ii ipiatd itlIi( Zhe (.I to fiXe'd Str ctLores neat thi( shore, loss of priblic arid tiiatiiteApi179adscttebdiatOttetfeaiitd priva t('op-n space, osso cif ildlife hiahi tat anidincrease-d (aactR'iiteNaiuciet O R)cttesastlcttit i experidi ure of public- funds.'"" Roughly following tire pjitct sitett dc'elitpciieiii. ct Itli app iovafile coastal pitgtatut. I'll( diafi wopt'awd' coastal ptogtamiti kc itts lea'uetwotkiitg pattern of tire Carlic'r Wetlands Act, tire Sand Dune of existing Itigistitui e Jrogrants. 'ItiI( dt aft ouliitts 21 goals atid Protection Act Jprovides for designated counties ari ttuttrs I civ is ital en nttuti' y tcu iai2 (it ies"I to regu late certain uses of sand dunes arid Stl(,ate.gvi'itis []il tat ctittlcile h t fottdatiiti fot the plopcts'd ''reacicrs' (coastal] segments of sandy beaches frontin tImig ii. Draft VCRNIP, stpra tiott 2.a tt1I--. fig (I ti'(.GLI1ioui oitl tft 1',tilojitnt'it i' dstatt-'s lead agc'utin ttt tille oiii Chesapeake nry) unrder uniform local zoning ordi- tlopovd ((t tish(.it ptcigiaiii, St tiedotd pultlic heat ittgs oti it liii ilaril(C'.9s.tStare. standar ds are se't forth iln tir' act,", arid 'iiitt tt.siiiiciltc'fftptgiittxttititOR (;otmnr is intl Y~~~~~~~~~~' ~IR.5. 1 elc'phowti' oinit at;iiiit tot Out'ictui 19. 1981, With Btitnl(- 'lre progratrs for subaqueous lad angmn, luau. .spid~ ijic t 2. lands managemc-n (7: Ct-salivake BKtx Agivinettcii ofI fl tifi 9, l9wi. 'I'ttc' otttt' ipar- wc'tlaircls rinirigerircni arid stand dune pioitedtiti nde itsitiianruiiii.t'ui uied SacsEtvrntttilt'oe tIlet's stat tils alle anrorig file seven existing ( ort' regula- riiii Agtr MaIN~aliild. lcItuIS)Ivallia aicll ttlic D)tiri(I td ttluiiut- JANUARY 1985 11 Iiia. For a hiicl dis'cussion)4 of C liesalivke Ba', aiid its pollu4tion1 .-S.L.24 m144), 87-:1. Ili dif ti.444,v. 4141- Vi.4.44ll silpicill-444-(.44 I III d ili plobicills44, (.e Shloeand4 Beach4. Vo.45.2, No. 1, Jaluli.44 198L I4 .1. a l l jtI gIIIkI 44411II 44. I 0444044X, 1III vI~ii g4 I14 14. I s Iif rIwIf . IfI I 443 14 jil-I .Draift I' '( :R Nl ti 4 r,)0 4444 2, at I . The lei ii IT'de-'44! r 1 ' rea I lI 78044 k, c I. I, I )(1 d1(f I ]i I I Li tlw W.etaiftidse A-Vt toinv i~II 29 counfI ties a Ud I84( 4it c I I 2 I Id. at I 9ii, 2T4 I S [2d at 873 l yljlb'lo ji nor1, III I4 [i.f' I44 44 1 4141 vai,141-i p)art 4)1 [111e 54412 Va. Cod12 � 62.1-13.2. I1 II' a re41 Iioi I86) I,, IS71, 411444 I' flt RI'4.4',4144. tI n (.1 4444124 - dciit o144is i5 444e 11 ( Ilapict of 4141e Virginia COdt' (14)414124illg dle 44441 14d4 414 ',,lj 441 All lands1' Im-Nous 444'l 1I,4,4 4, it I 41444mo44." ',iitc', \lami Reichmit'lls's14415(jiofh4,4(1. 141. ~ 2).1-2. M' j4'l'44-Iid. IiI 187:.1 In 14-g4414444Ie 44t4v441i'la 14 4n14I W i4 .4g44tsl [0441 fi44 luIt idsll [lict' iies arde-ountij4s l'iving wh l eIl l p rtil ;II I4 it4 I gtI Ii g I I412 bcd', .4I4Id1 I'lon's IIIh NhdI it 4144') off44 N44 1)(44444vN dIm 14' [1434t po)rtioni of V IrIgill id below the fall I1I441[C3a44d tills sub t.I ,I tIle'c 1414 ioulN it-,I , id I vqjt 14 444 v44424 41444 1)11 Ilkfo5Ile.'.)', )Ii if 44tt141.' 1872 -73 ris 51 . Id fal I 4f [lie title."' Brion [' T1igi 1 v~ia Natural1 lie'o r Law41" V.444a. A t IN (h .. 13. (4744! f144' A'cew[' Virginia WIellaund, .14.1.30 article. &- Lee L..RRev. 19, 18 2'2. k'a. (.44411 6 2.- I -. 6'2.1-2. lIe IIii 4,i lij ( :osit4't 444 44 p4441441ibi 1197 3). dife said of1 14.44443 o~ic bted s lot-l, k',, fied shoak,1' fit tire %%Pot', '4f 9. -1 his t si3,jficatjion is used for com cnience and cons'is,1tent ) wiili ilh4' (,4)44i444444w4,41l., V.. (C444',. ii . 1, � . Ili add1(ition4, '.. ("I.vI4 ,tlier article, iii this series. Hlowever, ill Virginlia. the ks 4441, � 1. 1-3 Inm ides 414.4 1414gialil NIi1I.1 pa)4a5 344 slal,41cor 4444u1254 in4 f-a ndiu4 atid leiglhland are somtimes1412 used t(o itfer 4t4 tlie iupI.iii, Liilds 44134.112 a co444imol 1111dlet V',. Code *�6.1I (:itaiti these 414'4144 w rt forei Tsiore toiticant, he tidielandslas b341,let weeltil 41i12 s 441',(C 44141d' N444 . y ifolig (:tr N . Uo(444 e , 4(t Va. (27 Gl4att.) 130 1 8 7i. ,)I 41412344 high water arid1 mean low water) anid the term4 sliballvie- f lie %'tigitein.444 444'',t- geillcll lii,, I 444441ud4ed Ili.a4 4144 I ollillioll- 4))5l~i Isirds to descrihe both tidelands arid SLubincrged 1.444(1' (Lind eat I)%is 4v21ll 41.45 th 14441 44f 4434 igatbie %is,441r' .4nd4 , 44414 t, Ij'L-, gI.4l below.1. [tictle o4424f ]He4art IOI', w4.3er). p43412444 of 441[44r 41412,444' I44444.12 its fulf.I [in44oj pl~;tu441. ow,-4rl~ic'Ip." I10. lirioni, Thic (44re.%ov 4 ed Sirm4- ture ofiropertv R!ight tit 1.4 e i' 1 ic I i lrp - 1118 1-82 Rep[. 4t V 'a.. Titl4% . C .44if. 2 I6i( �181 444 Shore, 2-1 Well. &- MarN L..Rev. 727 ( 1983). See Aso,4 E41heN, '23. 67 84.44. 29; 4 441fai1'd a -13 U.S.C. � 1.101 V1 Set(f. 1W[at ers oft[le State 171-211)~19314. 2 1. U 14ittidXate'. V ..-ainie, 120 [U.S. 315. 517-518(1975). lit 13 th 't,12. I 1. Vi. Co~de � 62.1-13.1 el )eq. For a hiief discussioni4 441 114is st1a4tute the 4 ovill44)iol4.,l t~ll4 4 44411112ldc 11434 it w44,144112( 4 4'ed \1to Ise a4441 44414r regulatory measures. ',ee ' Regiulator Nutr4(itious, d oilnIion i4 in.44. 44oitr44 iser [Ilie csiplotaili 443404 44( 415 ci 4lpti41241 of under ' Leasing and Regulation of Coastal Zone11 [.34441' aritl 5144. ]nti a 44444C a [4431 be',hr15.' 441.4) 1412 1on444 aiid 4444l f441 44 4te W'ater~s, infra. seabed r44i(1 ',ubsoi 44(1'l4 indti~ g 1412 A-\4anl4ic 0412344 withlln 100 12. 1818-19 Va. Acts 4.-l. 28. 4i44 of4'' ) its (444454 l)Cla4.4e it 44a' 4141 SU41(12554Or [I) thle Xi i 44 2i4 [3. Bradford v. Na ure Coonser -am 74). utp ra, 221I Va. 181, 2941 .E. 241 (4114 i~3lp iv, %wliiose. 1609to4 jl311 1444 e define4td [lie 4 41444y', s4 itisdi - 866. As to the ulcertaility of ihe gelgralphic.al 12xte1444of theatca24s 444444 a4 e2x4tendintg 11ha4 far scjaw~rd. rflaI4-rt , UI 1444444 f4inil [lhe designattedor used as acolIi444014. seei nfra niv441157and44 ( ou(449)45 ipm MaginalI Sa l44. it E'xam iple of/ 11.Nlr,) iry 4141e Il4ia,, ')8 V.a. L. Rex ing text under ''irgillia'b Public I'ru',t Dc44.( oi412.' 69I. 693 (1972). 14. However, the Vir4g iti a Sutpremne (.our in v42(41I ieog4444mc4 that 25. Va.4 Co d (:44 � 62.1I-2. .S4' 425 ( 4,'i4 fisso under - ' 'aircraft 444 ill.5414412mcd the English cr-own, act inig 41rotgli tilie I oval g 4',('11444 , riva1 14112n [..f41(1 Bou14 ditV ' inlfra enmpowered to grantit[he submlerged lied of 4444,1 444 t o priacpa- 26. 1981-82 Rep. o f V.44. Ait. Geli .supir( 41441122,34 2 184.. 1141 I lcr114 tie2s. Commonweal074'C1 t/i v. Mo rga 0, 225 V.a. 51I7. :113 S. E.241 899 -', 1444412 of flIt' scil hls~' Icl Consulte tb~i ',4rg44'41 by '.44 itt "t44)41'i4S'411 (1983). See also Br i14,-I4p ra 44041 10, 2 IX'Will. &' M.ary L.- Re%. at 7 17 44r4.a. Ije4 v o1' ii44diu4,4Vijj high anitd low 4,4.4412r ma4.r k." ' radf ri v ('patents to IautI~s Ii Tidewater V.irgini o1423 u)111d41 444141114 Likl Ntu crXi4re (.(Use r-a(1414,, 444p ra 221 Va. 444 19-I 44.-I' 291I S.E�.2d. ai 872 express [elms below low watcr tinark to in( lude 41412 14d441', iftidlte 41. 1; f/Illrston1 N. P4,rt.ovo44u14 205 V~a. 909. 91 1. I 1OS.�241 ((78. al80 creeks anrd itn I is') (1(44444,4124)11n4ttd). Fo41 r Iiief~ls 41 4 4 i,,14 )[ tile (I 9ti5): Frel4 Ii %. BanIk he(d .52 Va3. (I I I Graf44. 1:16, 160 1183-1). effect of 4144. 16-17 4irdiliaiwe i44 M.assatll,24 .41441s and Iaitte, respeic- 27. 1818.19 Va.' Act', 414. 28. Ill a [ilata14b11. (lt:e stat44te I('412 ilestat isely . ce .Shio TC (1(4 Beath, Vo'44. 30. No . I. Jaim4444 [ 1982. pp - ''d14o4bts cxis't, [a4' 44)] lhs ar["444r,44 thlit- ght41 so4414'' 1cir',o.f 13-I 1.34. a'.44V1. 52. No. 1. J141V 1981. p. 17. s h o w s 4'' . . .4.'44t'1i4. Ibid4. 13. Brion..vtprrz n4441 10, 21 Win,'rt.-! Mar', LRI' a 47 11. lI[estates [hat 28. Miller'v. Cooimo riti',-411/i 159 V.a. 921. 14(6 S.K. 537 (19:121; Wa4,-. [hre 44441) 444-o r121124a14 adj1d li(i~i444ry 44144444' [',nr' i' iiigJ fromi the er1i' lW'4t4r-b r47t h44 I p. Co. -. l'ials. 97 V.4. 1 76, 31 S.E. 3:1I colo4nial pe-riod1." Ilie- Grand44 A\sstinly ', I in4 Robert Liuiv o4rde1r 11899); Fre'144 it v. Iloriklheod, vNipra, 32 Va.. IlI (,fil4.) I [6. and( the V.irginiia (;cnerall (:.4ri 1741(11 4f 4444 i 4i41 Cuarle v. Swe- 29. S(oft v. l)4iigiitv, 121 I.Va. 3.7,8, 97 S.E. 8012. 8(1-I ( 1919). tiC)', Irt 4'lIr(l onti',i' ltt witlli (lt-n44 4 4impliction otf ...letgisla- 60 .a ie~42.1-2 WmIIphiasi addt-li.144l live124341141tt', Ib4giifil~itg iii 1i72 41444 pclimiiiId4li 414-a4444'fu.r (if 31. Aso4f this mi~tiIng. there h444-4. b-'n if) r4.'oi4tted V.irgitn.:iaa pcila~te 4444 etoro(f tlit 1819A'4. 41 ll whi h ixre',',y lt(4og4ize tat-4l4444442ictalt4134,14( 4.414. i~1'lt~dle 4521,i. 18.6-)41I,4ra4v4rage oif a ripa4rian4 Llandownierl 4144 ter[3 %w.44r',er [4444 44) 4lit' lw i',v~~tr o f all tile Iliglt titles. tiark.' " li. a44 738-719 if. 5 1. Ilit the Lilly o4rder, it ',,as sta4ted4 4144t 32. Steelman v. F-irl,-l 1 12 Va. :18:, 128 S.E. 358 1 1925). evecry m4441' right by vvitucoft44 his p)atenti extelnds iIIto tire t ivers or 33. lVa. COlle � 15. 1-3 1. creekcs ',oe farre as li,'', water mlarke.'' 2 I retftirig. V.a. Stat. -136. 3-1. 14!. � 10-215 el Sell. (Cuati. Sti[p. 1938-1). 1 6. M.a r tjiizv IlVa ddl v'l, I1 I ~ IlbS.I1 Pe t.) 367. 108(I181112); .-e'ry v-. lea le, 35. Id. �. 462.1-153, 62. I-13-.51 195 V.a. 4(911 4197. 8(1 S. E.2d 38-1. 388 (195-i); Commni n) wea llth v,. 36. For a birief Ii scutssio (44if t lie2 or ii 44f4 .4( 411.d,-I'copttenit otf tilie p)01) ic NewiporFt Neve.s, .') 138 V. 3'21, 5-1 1, I 6-I S, E. 4(89, 469- -1)93 (I 932;. I r tz d o4 41444 tic44., ',(4. 411- firs't a rt le It il t IIis' st-ri's, S/i ore 017441dIBeat h, 1 7. 1 0 I re44inig, '.a. Sta4. 2243. Fur 444 lit i di',ufissionl o~f 411 l'ie ilgiltia V ol4. 18. No. 1. O4tiobvr 1981). lit) 18.19. on441cpt (If 4111' - Itl4444)4',. ,1 ''l.'Virginia's Pubhlic frust D~ot tIrille. 37. Vit. Colist. 44rt. XI. 1144' 1i1-44'isioi state4s in4 pll.Ir that "it ',.lia t)h441 474/r7. I he 1780) statute11 4441e44lae(-( 3 1779 a44. es,4.illishin~g a4 ',sta' Col4ilIloll4w12441414' pv1itN to prt- I II lt I.4441, .4411 ,.41 Wit-S l ulapp o laud liff24 1.44 i Mv(it j4litie ilt'r, frlie St r444i1g w454.-4tl audgiitiliva , ul vo tilei)i 1(4,4 pcl )1C444 4jj4 4I i (1V 0 141'14.110 IX,1 /e4444l14. 18. 1818-119 Va. Ac4 st 414. 28. Sonlttitarihitg [h-lIt' t (if44 vit-14 1780andt4 XI, � I. I 819 �14 t5-4('41 r ist' ,l 444',144 lit'-'egael wfi savsi a( % t-i ev 444 trinel [Iriarl- :1H. Blradoflrdl v. Naiti rv (nie4C14 44144'4. 4 44pia4 22-1 Vi4 - I81. 2-1M S.E1.211 by 41412(.441l44' go441rit ent-44 a, w144 4 i41 livitngus45.41a', 444n44414o1',in :19. A-l deta4ile2d t'4x4p 4144imilli 441 III1- 4 4411c144(44t', t-et is, bv nlie'vt~ 11 178) 444i41 that. ffiewfoic41, w,4i41 t12sci2c 41241 1g4444 t444 (21 shirt-',, p444 i. ofw 4 h4a1itc btn' .444 112144 4 int u odutr4 ion4 4 in44 44434, plt'lt lj41. lied co114t144444 right III 44se4 .444d (3) all1 4)11 r ',1444ts, whli(1 4.124 144411'w41r4,i141erl ,' 'r4 41c e4 '~" t 0 112 itt j)4i4,441ly owned124 if 4144 .4dJ.4( il ('4 ipa i Isra1444( 4,444, po.1I)1t'fiti l' 144124 or 444 .4( 44.44-4,.'' I4l u'.rly Eniglandl. '4 441u4144444 14441- oiwVled4." M114 444144 444411'o 10. 21 Win11. & Mlir L..Ruv,. 447 18-7 19. [writ-i- 114141 Ii', . (131111414444iI fori p4i~le.4 bi-iteait. (iG ltiualk. hi'w~- 19. 1872-731 V.'. Alt', 41I. .1:3. 1.4,-r, asI tei .li(- I ma l i41 (thir4[44 go44'444iluiI4 Uaitit4'd11444r lilts 20. Va. (411fl � (21.1-I. ilhis I is e 111I4 41444a [(444 ti41 it' 4441t 44rt igi1431 4444444444do (he4144444 ferti',41 l',11(a~d 44141 11 lit-iy p ase ilk MS(4, Wh1it 14144' been-4 ll-Cl'44441 41414144144144141 Ca2.rs. 314)51' th44 [lie (.ivsvt 4or 5444441 desi5gna.ited g444'r144112invll 1)141) Bradford v. Natuiire Uomtrvr'a v,i v. (14/ra. 221 Va. 181. 193. 29-I 44wi4'lvd liet444444i 4441 414 444 14241Sitj' 4,44idi tlii 12 SHORE AND REACH II,1.( 21 h111. liii' (I111j21 IIi 1112I2211is1(it22I1% 3II12 1)I,1III (if8 I~l o2il I121 ,, III IdII saI4 ~-( j I i ISNI )2 ,IIS I182, 121 I I II I ~%. 211 so)1 I ~ ~ 2'1 t IIIIll -I '2 I II (I tt Stl' Il )II l% at IliV2l1 .ll2ll2Id II111 I2'11. 2tsl)lIV 1111 111I 21132 II-d11 III IINIII)I l(l aIil S. Ig'lI;4i IIIlotIll t tI( I t IN 1{olnic. 211.11 It- it'In I ,2122]St 1s'2l12t- .h2 t S- it 1111122 .I 1 Ihl-vIl( p iImtl'2% ll ap l ltlialelandI,2 plgill Ill 11,2v (tlo .Il'l litlil of Im;Hod l cdllpl 11111d22 a(2d (n/, (Tl witholl lot il 1. coalitio1 la ,42 Slams1121211% final I t I-aitd. 621al 221 V.2. 18, 291 ngis n lf 1 Slil- l.211 8,. -122. t% A N..1 I'l1'l .lu bt1112 112%2Sl.l5ilu'd itII'. dl V 5124111112. - lllIdl-ol'. Of11 '13 . 124. 322 124.142 2in S.i-.2 i 22 87 -872. Jl 212 2522)111 11 I2(12 [lilvit-; ll liiiay] ad lo~-t. a I hlL).llil il.I 2%ig'I 11. 0 Mi ..llie 11, e2 (.S if3., I 1,21il 2'sT dlayfdl~tltII. lf llwwt 3 [(I;j.1 1 1Ila I O%, III IsI ll I 1) 1- I( 22 'it)ifiI ,liltifit21 fit I I I '3lI it I( fa112 f Aultlilil 12 oI' f Iplgil dl l%. u 1112(lle (1211'2l P2.itI2 1.% Jipllv Io Hi~ll)lis' i ibe(I1 'S Bu.11-I .ll~l Th 11t om"&Rg t,2I2212 lii lINl2 lIll)11'I1.2. &-212 (:Nt-'.21,% 2 1111% .v .1 te .ls, t 1ll'2ll .21211 2.,oo1222(t 21 saeli A2 IllIll'Il l/ (.(21,. 221-m 22211 21211 Al'iti 1r 1 Ue-t tr1ial t . 2 31t5 Win0.I.& 2MC11Ilri.2 llIN (~II -19 Id. 1,12211 191,8281 '3 %Llggl'52222'. 211.2 2 Ill MlIS-)lo ol iu onuftedY 11.25 22122 'ilII 21122 1',' I I s .> I2 ,1 322 (99 21 S.1I1. 2,1 hi If,, Il 22A11- 212.2 tI .2 I) 22 I S 2.11 12121 12!1 16 (:1lU,1-1I/ S. A~I.. 12d it ';l.- (8 (.1I.I22.) so3 (1').Iv ( i'12I2I(1' 2121'. Io 12%it lI- I2221 2.21251 I'iil. 22125 20 67 22- '22 I) 192I9 Si i ss.2 II I2 I869. I() NI(i tIll. (ltliJals otl21 1,2 tlull 351.22ik 12(1121.2 . Bitit .ispl 212 69. baiv gsll .lot~ 22o1122li vi20.- 2i 122 ~' .v. 3t 62 39, 23 '2'2tll. N~ti [.1(1".. 22 891 lU. .%llc/7121-f2) d. d 21/lu, .1 (lit- 1-12l'232.N 8, 128 5. E. I5I -I( 141IIII i irIt~tg g1. 52.2. 21) un (12 221'(I tIll Vigli ult Iv suatus o132 p 1. Ixa(lill 5. I')ight012i of/112 2,(4 '23.99. 10SE.d6 222f32 b 11113211(2212(1. . .I I1IO,( I ild%1t12111'l agrees.2 of i tI lli silludl'%, ill Nalim1 Cms (;1)7, m x w-1 b II-( '2.. 759, 17vitii, SEd vast 1 w9(1In tllboi'l3%l'2l2 123212% 111a tIs 11g)INIItI21fll2Wi'321t1o has bli ll[ill pub1ttlllll 72. 111'sIlN .ti1ri111ig'I'311 l11 l 2'lil, 22.12I)11(1t I (1111mr I srei.adII,,[ to% [f21221it it(231 Illight' l tl'il'llf Ibm.Id ils.(iI tlIllasi 3Illi~28 J., ill'(1i1321d 32 owll 19% Nil,. -1,IJ 0(2lolwl b19811)2 2i(131rlIs Sug( o-l' ). ia [lit11241 t~kll'i 'S 2)211 /lliI~l %%i1)1221atllet altl vds - 1%, 21111% ,i I II Iill' '.'22u2 22 .II i 1) (2 I1I1I1)I2II. .2) ,) 11,21 I I. J 2IIt I 1621I1.o%%I I.' I~ S I~'' I G.322 ? I5( (Ilxtll I % % 1) 1121I21%.1 ,IIVIV I 2151 (l '2lgl I S.7, -(3. w/121/ A2121-1I 12. Vilgllid's oi1322 52'tion232 Ol~l tomilolrig 12s al)' d Ilil 121212 2122' 2921' S.L.2d21 Risuj us(rlitsi7l 12 1111I'2%21 fi.ll %, (1111211( 2211 (I'l trills' il from3,1 I3112 Ied .2))2212 . H ,, 2:1n rit(l . 619. 1 11515111l Si14I2'.112W2 6,21'l Wl~l)122311. Mm12 11111120 ii l 2122212222l o 39.'l1 N Ii~ . &- Nlm% L.R%21t2,1 . Sielna N.2k21 322211 . 215 m I2 12212 Va1. till p13211211 111. 15'158 .'% t (7 (ii.ent i1I3 Tll b) Tx1S . 1'm('1311',?o It21 '.31111 (1) fItng 310121 V a 1. '231.) (17 . L2. (-753 81 (19011 1))1I -.S1121.~1l ~ 1\1 11112 its (ommon tu13 l' 1(rai e thvivo'Iil .12 1222 . 1 0. ..1132. (Ibid. 2-18hsi 1-224 822g 11-1212la (%I a' ia 1221)) il \or a~so I r etal2 Fixers add132d41 221 2(21.I 18i(9 Autt 51(222% 21)c p'231lot is.1 I)t-it-s15 2211% 2 Id~H.2lci/s IT. 2- 1w SeJ(1( Uast. 2 it.''. I111 2.BII(III.s i31) 2212212' 312( Ii1i 111 3221 v11 iI 0I' 2) tii X2l13122 75I '2I ('2(1 . -- N. IL - % ((8 a 1I211 2%0 (Ill4ltI II 1)3 I %23211' wdollItu i0Il Vi2U2I212l32I (12 Sl'' II (:1)112'i, 1.1)2)d�1 '2% 2 r32- 132% 21211s W21i 1h 2 4).la Zo." hu , di- u. %2212'jt1111 212 '%'21t2 2) lulss ' .2211 .01l't1'.2 Stal regut-l 2111222((.2)2kail . ti121111(ouns S o f f 21it 2122 No illglsllg IlIi(lg I221211 13221 I iai ll wiv S I2)1 igtakilsgo 131% [I~ 8 - tiVd ll j1'232523 (' 1II. 'llg '.l)phi21'1( 12dd2d Nltguar�a32 2' % 32211 t)1212 und(-iI(% "11322111n Regula2till' of)IIII SICkms-1,221 I 6'2..-'n 2111' iop Alowij 0113211 32211 (:Im2x1'%32;'31k1 Bat 7]. ['lii ldiI 2(11' 553222 andt' Th212 - N,--- 521'.1611ra. 32 T Im."Iia 1,1 ltS ul- o f lid %Ite .1.1 lig .111/. 711 V2&1 Code.�62 86.-1(03. lI m clSa~le'sl N 3221(Snd1ar Slitill' 2.322121 26'1)132( 2)Spp '21 rgitlD. Va.12' 2131 111 ( 1251'6I13l' -2214212312%321 ly.22' gt-12231 (I rt I 2222322 181121 A:0111 II').. Ili'iti' Tilaeis con - 2,. s t62 I- lights Il 52., 221 2'. 181,i 291t 51.22 8234) Win. Id. MaN1..a 625813. dii shoal,. iw1)132 omniIlshi.jl Vi 1)1 t t 111121 311212 . i Uild u ll 5:3. 1121- ho till A~i%32 , II.21921.3122'I [I.121%b g321 31g2glit 22- sailgilu S i't13r 115.. fr3111111, ownv ~ ~isasoh le irt-ft-unit-t2 196)a241 t- ptsil'l111% 1 oiI-3510 22321 3111,2 cotains12 ]the1555215211 21 3111 ph11/)T.2 211)11i shre i14 capitalized les.%h l [I .R'.1,'0 1,7). 211.22 [i.e2.. I.32(84, 91 . .d)2821.4 liilltn.kil lraiin-wurk VI'.di~ SOL1111VSi'l 1)22 Nlati-sui bnd' olliill 5 i-wu 1. 13- Atlanti .02c1) IId 221,11cak Bay 2-I Thisl 8.'aN I l i..t,' w.t s 76(4. IJljl, 'Sa211in t-."025(123 Ibr 311 .2 lI f12'(115o .' 122 55.Au /cr'. Co12))1 )1)I'11)/ /l .'l)/111 15,1 232 921, 6(1S. i.17 (2112d-321o2323122.lIbd.i.11.32i324121 5(11l'Vjl 11%322' I'.'lW3bll bXi.l 122322 IlItl11ia 1321 seaboardI of2 Virinia ra1211ha1o% to3) those 2)1213132ajill. .119. (ll1a)c1'du2Is l illr oft Idt lallIN22i'. all([2I-3.5 m2224 1111 e122rp1 l)3232d21 gC 31221-4 i 17611erri, Coastal 1)112 iI'82d21 4t8 85. lo. z642.1-13.1 edl e. '1- 111232t 11Iil.'2(l''ig23 '.12 21 1' (l2.-o'2u 132 19 9-12111 S) I11 182, 3212) 53211 . 1-12t3.2111' Ill sv a. C~' 8I2d'lil il 11 2ril 14). 22 1 V2.1. 32 (24, 29 1 S..-21132 S 7-6. M ,6r2ll RI~ l -.(ol~~'sl;21.dlt~li 21112' l ~ l~l'.I'l22l~i 1 1)11 121112111221% I~isI'.. I'I1'111111213125 1151322111 ill Ilt~ly 3212-Il'Ili. - I 1 . I1r0%' r2111'-1of1it1d2 I1-32I is2Si1oil of I1)j it- I(2f2I11- oil S'11tidfalloo 12113a2'l '30 3211 111 1 kil'sow Li,21 1113w 22.p ll'ds AdaI l to11111 Slilt: ai ne wt12151N t 1311t up(2' a(r~l Ialdi~l 12131114% zoning11 dbslJiid d whost, 1032is3to lit ilw1 t ivo Ii 3221'ed, mu21di% 2m ad Illuilail2'lIa pass o2il.11 aIlll'-2Ul2s.es11 W.11311% 2.l~ ill) ftil' y( ... ( upl(21ioll'S of'. l 21)2 we132'd,' A21' JANUARYs. 1985 13 9 91SL2 l 6.dtiinmkngfamwr sipsdolteubad ac I,;( t a ll I SVI % IIit 1 I ( C XCIt I(Y.I i S [l' 1 ,LIII' l~lil( I IN )IM~II)) 1114 A b il c 8 I III , I . III~, II,�n.I I Ai ~.i~l)III t I I I II I I I J I ( I I )A I I k t .' - ai ir up ra tutue 8, 3 11 I, Wa s. I* 1.1, - I-,-l. 9. at ( IX- Ill (frulnoic Ii2. 3 .1.5 86. IIIis tuICnI is du-fin II tIi opart to rIIcan l li lauIIIdN ling lxiwcri t. l IId0, I. 62. - 1.1.1. If li i inpi - t trliiiiit os ItwtI I182 giinitltIit ws iii- (,J anld (01i1gIOUinS ti) Ilivall IoN% wailti and anl] ulf-aiirri iltoi. rIntl[ ln mil Ii in a7).i.wr b- riklvt I huI% Ii( 11, nnuig olu illungh, in lliddss sisu sI I I( pt J f I Iitt I e I Isd ) t .111(1oj ut t tI.l .IlI I I It IIIt aI III i- I III- I - 9 1 . I (.rd. II.1-' I -13.21 sq.I IIf i1i. Still I. I198 1). att-d nli it sh P Iplants grow. Vaf. Code � I i2. 1-13.2t I). 92. 1f. g 62 I -I 3 2 1 J( 'Jim. Impl). 1918 I) 87. [ his lei Ioi is clefinudil. ill [)art lo ttIlanl "all that lanid N tingi ontigit- 9r3. id. 62i. I3 127 ((.11111. sitil)[ I'J8l ). ous to invai low watur . . .aitti [bulitwI nIIIali Iligh wIturc Iot 9 1. ibid. (C 111l. 'iilili. 19811. )Iftleirwi SC i II( L dul I IIIIC thelI I tui sugetatud %l odi. lejit. 9. Id. � S i 62' I -1 323. 12.1-13.2(1I). "Nriiwgutait-.l1 wetlailds" ill itll illtl li al art-a wri 9�6. fi � i. I - 1. I. irntid clddwithin tiie act unider a [982 aiii-zrdirirn, 1982 %t'a Auis 97. See osprsu Flows 5 iit il ii. II. 300. W. F. BAIRD & ASSOCIATES Coastal Engineers Ltd. BREAKWATER SPECIALISTS 1390 Prince of Wales Drive. Suite 309 Telex: 453-4951 Ottawa, Canada K2C 3N6 Tel.: (613) 225-6560 4~o Great Lakes Andrew Cashen Dredge&Dock Company A Ssbssdtary of Great Lakes Inierrnat,onial Inc River & Harbor Improvemonls Flood Conlrol Land Reclamation Heavy Foundations Erosion Consultant Suhaqueous Rock Blasling Corporate Offices 2122 York Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 312 920-3000 Telex 25-4441 Catle GRATLAK Chicago 1225 Dock Road, No. Madison, Ohio 44057 Great Lakes Division. Oak Brook. IL 312 920-3070 North Atlantic Division Union. NJ 201 964-8070 Home of Cashen Cone & Wedge South Atlantic Division Tnwson. MD 301 821-6111 Southern Division quarter century dedicated to heIfinq tshare areion. New Orleans 504 822 8444 Overseas Division Tampa FL 813 837-5695 14 SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XIX: The Alaska Approach BY PETER H. F. GRABER Attorney at Lauw San Francisco, California XTENDING 33,904 MILES, Alaska's coast dwarfs A. Uplands that of any other state. In fact, it is longer than that of all the 48 contiguous states and it repre- Despite federal statutes enabling the state and Alaska sents about one-third of the total marine shoreline of Natives-Aleuts, Eskimos and Indians-to select enor- the United States and its possessions.' mous quantities of land,8 the United States still owns In an attempt to preserve the scenic splendor of the the majority of the uplands along Alaska's coast.9 Vast Alaska coast while encouraging the development of coastal areas are included within national forests, parks, such natural resources as petroleum, state coastal legis- preserves and wildlife refuges. lation was passed in 1977.2 That law is the foundation However, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act for the Alaska Coastal Management Program, which mandates that, in Alaska as in other coastal states, fed- the Federal Government approved in 1979.3 erally owned or managed lands be excluded from the Unusual legal problems abound along the state's area directly subject to the state's Coastal Management coast. For example, the Inupiat Eskimos depend for Program.'0 their subsistence and culture on the bowhead whale, polar bear and other species. Beaufort Sea islands and shore areas are the habitat of these Arctic wildlife. Yet B. Tidelands the state decided to offer offshore oil and gas tracts in the vicinity for lease. In 1982 the Alaska Supreme Under the federal Tidelands Act of 1957,11 title to the Court was called on to determine whether a public lands between the lines of mean high and lot tide official had correctly found that the lease offering was passed from the United States'2 to the Territory of in the state's best interest.' Alaska. This law also provided that, upon the territo- The state's high court also had to decide in 1982 ry's disposition of any such lands, those individuals whether a private littoral property owner should obtain occupying the property were entitled to preference title to adjoining previously submerged land that had rights. been formed by "glacio-isostatic uplift," or the gradual Upon joining the Union on Jan. 3, 1959, the State of rise in the earth's crust resulting from the decrease in Alaska succeeded the territorial government as the owner the downward pressure exerted by a glacial ice mass.5 of all publicly held tidelands by virtue of the equal- footing doctrine.' The new state's Alaska Land Act'4 allowed municipalities to obtain title to some tide and TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN submerged lands.'5 Like the earlier federal Tidelands THE COASTAL ZONE Act, this state law gave private parties who, before statehood, had occupied or developed tide and sub- Alaska's coastal zone, as defined in the state Coastal merged lands preference rights to buy or lease them?1 Management Program's guidelines and standards, ex- Some 25,000 acres of tide-flowed lands are owned by tends seaward 3 geographical miles6 and landward a municipalities and individuals." variable distance to a line derived from a study of the relationship between the marine environment and the terrestrial environment.? C Submerged Lands For convenience, lands within the coastal zone may be legally classified as uplands, tidelands and sub- The Alaska Statehood Act'8 provides that the Sub- merged lands. merged Lands Act of 1953'9 applies to Alaska. Conse- quently, the state owns submerged lands within a 3- h il, hn a9,1 inau'r,',. i, ati, k.s lr,.mg a aal,.h v,..i ......t i,,, ,,...a.I... geographical-mile band of its coast. lamb of thr (oas i-ll iiJnaloirn(s. Ille arlit I, k lnells aUlll. 1' C� illililli al-'1s1i illi ilt'X .la niut ,i.nal.-t , nla.,lantl,as,. lanl ll ,, Sawlc Alaska lell thll ll asl ll al rll However, Alaska and the Federal Government are 1sia. hlmi.a i,.ns. clir lital.l idllh allal.sio man, ..I ls l' .is ......s. axl i,, ..., currently involved in a lawsuitz20 over the method of .,....., .... ,, hl,. . .. . thi . defining the baseline to be used for measuring the 3- .~er~,,.al c.m, la. ... . .ali.i.rii... .., u, anm i agisii n tc id .iia i-, aish, P.,l ,I mile limit, the outcome of which litigation will affect F. Grai' Ihh aullhol alsxo appl. slIl ( lpri ll J 1llllII ll I1)1 I111' IN 1d11 Ilit- 1 1ill' hl Y.. ,-, control over petroleum-rich submerged lands in the APRIL 1985 3 Beaufort Sea along the state's northern coast.Y2 And in "Accretioln refl(-s gener-ally to the gradual and illpel- 1975 the U.S. Supreme C;ourt rejected Alaska's claim to ceptibli inclrease in landl area beside a bod) of iwatcl. ownership of submerged lands in the lower C(;ook Inlet: IIn this (orliextl, it should be dislingluished ftoln 'azrul- the state had asserted that the inlet was inland water dii,' dhiddh efers so a sd1den and pellip( le Ilaligc under the "*historic bay" doctrine.2' it 'he shorl in ...h bet efits ol a((IcIioli itilc lot thlt sholelinc ownerl, whil a ulsioln tIcs nol ha Igt lilth lggal bou)tlaI; .... "... The ot ltp'J)art Ito a(c reoilt1 is 're'll lio p., DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES which ( oies abotll b, all tlt elt e of xistinlg soil. A.. a(nrtliiil AdI rehlittioni, a lihougigh ph) si( alIl (uit A. Upland Tideland Boundary diffltlren p lo-esse ,s, ale istibjt I( tho l( same lol le' Itgltld- ing title; i.e., the benefil inuecs to tilt shoricline ownci . The Alaska Land Act characterizes the metian high- ... 14 tide line as thc legal boundary between privately held Although reliction has been defined as refrlling uplands and publicly ouwned tidelantids. However, as only to situations where the water has recedcd, the mentioned above, the same law recognizes preferenc'e Alaska (ourt ruled that "glacio-isostatic uplift is a rights in private parties who, before statehood, hadl form of reliction, and( thertefore suhbjc(t to thle genrial occupied tide and submerged lands seaward of this common law doctrine of accretion.3 TIhe court said line.24 it was "persuaded that reliction FproperIly enm ollpa'sses Before statehood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the the emergence of soil either through recession oi tihe Ninth Circuit, in a tax case, indicated that the line of water or through rise of the bed."36 mean high tide was the upland tideland property The court concluded "that the particulal physi(al boundary.25 Since statehood, Alaska's Supreme Court process of reliction is irrelevant for several leaiolhs": has not had occasion to discuss the methodology of (1) "no case has been located in which the application locating the boundary on the ground.26 It may be of the law of reliction turned upon the nature of the assumed, however, that that court would interpret the geophysical process which caused the new land to statutory phrase "nmean high-tide line" in a manner emerge"; (2) the common-law reliction doctrinl "ori- consistent with the federal Borax rule. i.e., as a line ginated well before the development of the glacio- based on the use of a tidal datum averaging all the isostatic uplift theory"; and (3) "the changes in the high waters over a 19-year epoc(h.27 relative sea level are usually the result of a combina- tion of geophysical processes. "3 Glaciers are only one of numerous significant phys- B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the ical influences having an impact on the Alaska coast; Location of the Shoreline others include earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunanlis, snow avalanches, sea ice and icebergs.38 tinder Alaska case law, the legal boundary moves For example, the Good Friday earthquake of 196-1 waterward if the upland owuner can "demonstrate that killed 130 people and caused S311 million of property a gradual depositing of alluvium by the actions of damage. "Among the secondary hazards associated contiguous waters has taken place. "2 So long as the with the... earthquake were . . . land subsidelnce to 8 owner himself plays no part in causing the accretion, feet, uplift to 38 feet . . . and a disastrous tsunanli it does not matter if it is brought about artificially by which . . . was responsible for 90 percent of the the acts of man.29 deaths."39 The Alaska attorney general's office took In Honsinger v. State,30 a 1982 decision, the Alaska the position that shoreline changes caused by thet Supreme Court wrestled with an unusual tidal boun- quake were avulsive and thus did not change the loca- dary problem precipitated by a glacier. Plantiffs owned tion of property boundaries.40 homestead lands in the Mendenhall Wetland area Although only about 330 miles of Alaska's coast- near Juneau. Since the time of the original homestead line is classified as developed, the state Coastal Man- patent surveys, "approximately 95 acres of land had agement Program document indicates that critical emerged contiguous to the seaward side of [their] erosion is occurring in as much as one-third of that property."3 As shoreline owners, they claimed that area and in 40 coastal comlmunities.4' The programl's the disputed property had formed by accretion and standards provide that seawalls. bulkheads, groins that they were entitled to it. and other structural solutions "ma'y be most appro- The state, however, argued that the general rule of priate" in areas already dvelopedl, but that "[a]long accretion was inappropriate because "all or a portion the undevelolped coast where development is not inomi- of the land in question was formed instead by glacio- nent. Alaska's policy is not to control erosion.'"2 isostaLic uplift."32 The court described that term as follows: '''laiO-i ti uliftols il) simplified tis, refers ALASKA'S PUTBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE the gradual lise of the ' arth's crtust which occlirs whet'n Ihte downtwar;ld pIre-sslte exert'ed by a glacial ice 1 .lnder the connnon-l;w putblic trIust dtloctrile. the mass diminishes. The reIsult at shtorl'lilnes is a gra;ldul; public has the right to uset tidal waters for purposes emergetl-te of land pr-eviousl) submiretrigcl.T'' such as navigatioll and fishlling.4 Applicatioll of tlhis The Honsinger opinion contains a lengthy discus- le'gal colcelt \varies fromn state ito Sllte. Inl Al;ask. flinl sion of the legal effect of physical changes in thelt state Suprenme (Court has nl ot yet beenl calltd on to shoreline: deterlinie the nature and extent of the doct'rine. 4 SHORE AND BEACH "[lj]ntil the Alaska courts speak on the subject," Pursuant to this ANCSA provision, the secretary of the state altorney general's office wrote in 1982, "we the interior in 1976 proposed to reserve to tht United cannot conclude . . . exactly what the parameters of States a continuous shoreline easemenl 25 feet in the . . . doctrine in Alaska are."44 Pending such a width above mean high tide along all of the statr's judicial determination, the office advised the state marine coastline. Wh'len Alaska Natives IgallB (hhal- Deparirment of Natural Resources, as trustee of lands lengsed this plan, the felderal Distri( t (;ourt lo Alaska beneath navigable watiers, "to assumet . . . that the invalidated tilh continuous shoreline t'easemcntlll .' Lalel, broad definition of public rights adopted byN the Cali- the U.S. Department of the Intelior chianged its posi- tornia Supremle Court applies in Alaska.''4 lion, electing to reservt- easementtis onilx at pletiodic The' California putblic trust doctrine is more expan- points along thet c(oast."S' sive than that of most coastal states.46 Encompassing The Alaska (;oastal Management P'rogiam do( u- far more than the tradlitional uses of cominer(e, navi- mlent, whil ]( noting that "ac(ecss to and along the gationi aind fisheries, thet concept has been judicially shoreline is for thet !nost part unilldered,"'; warns interptreted in that state to in(lude using navigable that "'[t]he genlerally unrestricted a((tcss . . ..njoxed waters and the undterlying lands fot recreational and by past generations of Alaskans is (onlinig to a rapic envir-onmental purposes.47 Not only publicly held end."'5 Various reasons are cited for this hanlge: tide and submeiged lands are subject to the public Native land selection, inc-rased industrial anld Iesi- trust easement in California; it also encumbers pri- dential construction in developed aleas, homnestecad- vatel ozwned tidelands sold by the state under general ing, natural resource extraction.j4 State reglatritllns statutes of statewlide applicability."4 setting forth thetl standards for imptlementing the man- Consequently, full judicial acceptance of the Alaska agemnen t programl call for giving "high piriorit- to attorney general's vitews would meanc that such lands maintaining and, where app)rolpriatc, increasing pub- in private ownership in that state are encumbered by lic access to coastal Nwatet "6(, the public trust easemlent and that the trust protects a multitude of uses. PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS In the 1973 ll'ernberg decision, tht' Alaska Suptetnmet Court ruled that a littoral property ownel's privatc Alaska constitutional and statutory law contains right of access to navigable waters could not be taken several provisions designed to protect public access to b; the state unless the owner is compensated."' The coastal waters. The state's Constitution guarantees case arose when the state built a highway across a that "[f]ree access to tht' navigable or public waters creek and the tidelands of Cook Inlet near Anchorage. .shall not be denied any citizen ., except that the For more than 20 years, the owner of properl- abut- legislature may . . . regulate and limit such access for ting the creek had used the creek to navigate his other beneficial uses or public purposes. "9 commercial fishing boats between his prlopl-rt and A statute provides that, "[i]n classifying and mak- the inlet. The highway destroyed the cictek's navliga- ing state land available for private use and settlement bility by obstructing the flow of tidal waters ul) the purposes," the director of the division of lands of the creek; it also blocked tht ownlr's access across lth Department of Natural Resources should take "'s]pe- tidelands to tlhe inlet's deep waters.162 cial care ... to preserve public access to public water. Thc State of Alaska asserted that it did not need to ..,s compensate the owner b1 virtue of what is referred to Before selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of as the state wnavigation servitude, which is derivetd any state land adjacent to a navigable body of .water fronl tlhe state's polict poWer.63 Tllis stael sevittude is or waterway, the state glenerally must provide "tlhe distinguishable from the federal navigational servi- specifi( easements or rights-of-way necessary to ensure tudle, which arises from ni the comnilterce claitse of thet fret access to and along the body of water.'5' T'he law jU.S. Constitution and which enables the Federal G;ov- dealing with the sale or lease of tide and submlerged enlment to regulatl all navigable watels throutghout lands by cities requires "reasonable acc'ess to putblic the nation.a4 In lVernberg, the Alaska court ruled waters."S2 that, where the Federal (;overinmlent has not actedl, tht Public access is also one of the issues involved in state servitude "allows the state, in aid of navigalion. the United States' conveyance of 44 million acres of to take private riparian rights j w.ithout paying tlht' land in Alaska to the Alaska Natives, based on aborig- compensation that would otherwise be eqlil-red" inal land claims. The 1971 federal law authorizing under thle I 11h amendment to thei' '.S. (onstititlion.�"" this coneyvanc', the Alaska Native Claims Settlmenlt Thet court recognized thall the state navigaltion setl- Act (ANCSA),53 provides for the reservation ol vitudc( was broad enough to permit the' state "to take "... publlic caseiletllls acToss landsll s(leiteld 11 tilt' riparian or littoral propcrty rights lol 'bclclicial or [Nativs cotlpolationlsi and at pciodic points ilallonhg lte putilitc uses' other than ill aid of l;liga;lionl.'l"' such courses of I majol watlel'ways wehil ghway in lesitsllln. loweve. tie stirl(tl' lltt n(-essalx Ito gullialilve{' illt'ltlilatiollall Iit'al5 obligatio ns, a full right of irublic usc and ail(cess tol Irctlealiollt. oll to ol tlat to Alasll (ollstittitiotl elilt's tlw hotaliling, tratslorltatlioll utilities, docks. and suchl l)ili ol tl)es o b'iS i' Ot' w ollc( l pliblic usc's as tllc IJoilln F'edral-Stalc I alld deprived of his valuable privaltc lilloral righlt of ac- t sec] Planning C(ommissioltn d'l{elit's to t' impol- tCess.)6 The (courl empii)haisiztel tll it lla)orltit n of watrl tanl."'5 accss ill Alaska: APRIL 1985 5 (aicttt'ivili(tl dialu [ic'ui'iiptt.at taking B. Regulatory Activities of Stith i littotal a(cess light Illa%. t'lvlr'ujvel renidel. aibilitilig land %alitles's III giviallI it'dtit'c it iii N'al1ti. In 1977 the Alaska Coastal Management Act," was .\iaska hasa "tall g1S ltit'thani that of lilt' t'iitIi passed. This act authorizes the state Coastal Policy 1 'ujicti Snc,. X lar1ge Ilniih'i of AXljskan tol lIitlti- Council"2 to approve the'Alaska Coastal Managemen't tit's . IIt 14 cICiti I41 t' it)I' h SIlif le" Ii IIa 1)IS atII( inL.[tS i I MLI(]toe ,iLalill watr 'i cIa(Iss 1( it I I al'sp l tal t III and Program and the numerous district coastal manage- SiIi) lipilil )I (I,% i't~Ya(ts L vS toIlIt' 0Itt Itl I ishijing gi olilids inent prograMS113 and to adopt regulations setting ofAlaska. A siih',atiiiial atotn o de'~dopFtit'ttt in l forth guidelines and standards for implementing the liiit'se t jtile is alonig IIIt' 1alclat't .. hu. IJAJv tittltaicit act.84 didii Iilitital antvs's iika% li t'aketi br ani; phtiili( pill- One Coastal Policy Council regulation iticor- p os t'I In )II tL Lr mnl tip .at ion] wIIill itilvd'tiait'lsd rtir~ le porates into the coastal program '*thle statutes pet lain- )IIIwINill Npe n in sn Ii aras alti I tmil (litwdc t'(ichqlmcili~ tof ing to and the regulations and procedures of1 the Ililmi sohld~itt cciiiitiiit' lose. cIii l iltalls o fAlaska Department of Environmnental Consera (tion act L 'ss is In N aiti.'' with respect to the protection of air, land, and water A m tet owner~s right oIf access to tiavigable wvaters qluality. .,. The state's coastal zone is also subject was ntilt subject t of anothler rvut'm Alaska Supireme to regulation by a number of other state anid local gov'- Colin case?'1 Fwo adjoining owiitrs hldtt tidelt'lids ernimental agencies. For example. the filling, excava- granted to them In bN(fie states law recognititig lilt prt'f- tion and reconstruction of iniprovernetit in tide and trente igts td pl-'staehood ore upatits of Such lands. submerged lands require permits from thre state De- The trial judge had enjoined one Owner from interfer- partmiett of Natural Resourt-s.-6 tug withi thle adjoining owner's alleged easemnent acoss Alaska's "power to regulate and control activity at dock. The SuIpremeI Court1 rcelveed, litldiilg that within her territorial waters, at least in the absetnce of whsil' tile dock mnaN have afforded more (onx't'iieiit conflicting federal legislation,'' was upheld by thre access. (lit' adjoining owner had antother reasonablie U.S Supreme Court in 1961, two years following mecans oIf a~ccess to the waterfront area served by1 the statehood.87 That decision was handed' dowtri in a case Iaeet' itivolving a tax imposed on freezer ships used for the taking and preservation of Salmon along Alaska's shores. Although the case originated whIen Alaska was still a territory, the high court decided it because LEASING AND REGULATION OF of its importance to the then new state."" COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS A. Leasing ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The State Department of Natural Resources may The atuthor is grateful to Laura L. Davis, assistant Itas thesates ttle nd sbmered atid forthe attorney general; Gary Gustafson, chief of landI man- exiic~at on.devlopentandextacton f mnerls, agement, Department of Natural Resources; and James inc luding oil and gas.72 It is the state's constitutional R.Aescoriarnd myKlnlstbthf polic, hiowever, that lease areas be subject to reason- Office of Coastal Managemnent, State of Alaska, for aillt concrrentUSeS.71 providing some of the source materials cited in this A 1982 Alaska Supreme Court case74 focused On a atce findling by dile state cotumissioner of natural resources that it was in thle state's best inlterest75 to offer for lease RFRNE oil and gas tracts in the Beaufort Sea, along thre state's RFRNE northern coast. The Barrier Islands in the proposed 1 tt fAoaCa~a aaeetPormaifFa ni lease, area and riearb~v shorelands are the habitat for r. Shtimef lik Catal matIiaeme-nec211 1979rao aliie Finalu L tieda the howhead whale, polar bear-, caribou and other M;AtPJ I .1 Sladv of Pedi'ral !.and Laz's and Pu/iz u's in Arctic species that the Inuipiat Eskimoics, the Native .1laskcc 26/ Ile%. etd. t197t). inhabitants, depend on for their subsistence and 2. 1977 Alaska St'sS. t aws ch1. 81; (odittit'd withi aiiivit-ninelis Its1 ciil tore?' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Alaska Stai. � li. 10t.01 ettc seq.(t98. liT' -Sulpreme Court affirme~d the lower court's Coastalit ZncIgii waasget'tiviiALI f197 Lnis amerwtdcndedr 1ht V.S.C. wemand to the commissioner for specific findings on 1 15 1 et se'q. thre impac t of the lease sale onl the Eskimos' subsist- -t. Ifealnmond v. N.orthi .Show( Boroug. 6-15 P.2d 750 i'ctacka tuce activi'ties.77 ''The effect of this part of the . .. 1982). For at buId tdis iiss~ion ii ibis c as'. set' ''Leasing'' nitter opitnion is that, for policy reasons, the State Must t"t'asing ntrIa Re'gulation of Coiastal Zoneit Lands and Watcics.'' expressl conside the effct of lase sale on subsst- :1.infra. expressIN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Icosdrtrefetolessaeonsbi- .Ilnisinge r N.State Ii12 P1.2t t1352 (Alaska 1982). For at trit' nceh users since suIch an effect is a critical factor in disc tissilcl o it illts I st. Set.t ''t-cgat Effc( I of Ph Sir aI Chtaiigt's de term inis g tihe s ta Ic's best interest."" 78in(it' the Loaionn ci t e Stoicnte"j It'tiiter "DeteriniltaiiIi ol of Tlhe state is also authorized to lease tide and sub- ltidal Bcuuntt nits infra. merged lands for purposes other than extraction of 6. ACMP. Supra noite I ill 18. 109. 114. 7. Une 'utttr AlacU ska c C stal managt'neni Piograiii. anr initial tnriiaeral resources.-,"Leases of such lands for the devel- landwtsid fbiicitatti wt as s tltriwt't ftoin a sltate Depaitnucnr of opmeint of shore fisheries are permitted.80' F i sh atit ,.ainc tf tcictl~iitti. Biophii''Nt oil Boundaries of .-laska'sc 6 SHORE AND BEACH Coastal Zonc. Tlivi wata 00501 toitm Indus, subohnou- of dii it I l o I m-t.Icm rigii 111 It Is.):1 -I a ?c N.4 hi dulS ?) rle'.l . I .1 ip a. .397 inlinclio LIM. ("ilic porition of tilt toastal alco whico ph~sical 11.2d 280 (tOl, fill (icaind ou'i 25 %ots floalificdtl ;I if piijiii aiitihiologica1 plot (55(5 00' 0 111nt(ioi (I dilctI tilliali btIMtiC'tii 0(1 ilit-lsit lip ilill'i unlili hg 1p Iiall' pit is lpi'luo'101 landic a1( sll o'a" anl]d dnci: influvaint" (Ili o n tim lti11 of lii tias- 17. A(:MP. .suijtann t ite . it 5)4 tal zonci mutctdinig seaward and lanitilalid f m (titilt-ion /0111 of 8. 72 -Stitl .339. � 61 nief. ditc~i micint anlion . co aff-i icd and itificitin cd IN 11w I 19. 6(7 Stitt. 29. closc ptioxiinilxbiwt-m eiilnd and sca"). ACINII. .Suptn noll' 1. 24). 1 'mi'd Stairs % .4/ sAhik No. 81 ll tiiimiI at 18. 1 10. 2 1. Fic l a'-\okii Ijoiiciidi% its ,s now pri'ioLng bln'oo a sptc fill1,- A-1 disti It mtasial nianagenmil piotgiamts wooi di'u'Iopcc'I f .i-i niiini's. lit s1011's I (Iisillili lionIl 1..N (.11(11 l II) (aolltO iw Coastal P1olo (OnintiI. local (atl il11Ictsolutt.(]eilsitat is 22. 111)1(/ limle'.u %. A.'lhisa. 122 U.S. IS.- ,I9775) I'l( 'l II Sim,1 (01 (OLd11101itdjh% flti toasial /11111 lwitiiillo tiilitit Avelaioi ( iicoin1- N uhtlni thliil IowsNiii allot Alaskii lil olluiud'i 2_5001 i~i( i ll sialni's. Id. at 112-113. lei soino ilisltimcs. ithi' disitit I pioglialtl Sttlmlut~t~'l Itiiijls fioIllipcitim oii~l' ill att;I a lviim SOIl'. hast' chialigi-d 11 tiiliidodioi~i ftl'1iaal 23. Alaska Sial. ~ '38.05.8204 1981li Au, iu 1 p1' (15imsloi Ill tll Same11 _0W ffcipiti ('(iliscI stliliw l bowt.25.IN ofs s'ii 'Xti tlttit Iltl' il oi l/'(ll s11 ~ll ,11 (*111 Ii i Ks 0'. Julcpihfonc (of Cosatio Moligl jiml. 25. 1915 i~ifi AX1, tsk StIILIIlO d-ills ih % d liditil 15 tido l it, 111 J1'115'1' "il'i'siills Iin Alaskait m tildinp ig jllmia~~li iia of050 thIat l ullilids. 110111] 2 1. Id. � 38.445.7.820) (91198). thi' Alaska Sioitchood AlI 11)1 1958. 72 S~titt 3'9 . � 11 51.11 wit tilas 25~. Ikonu-irft s. (.it ot K'hle'o k. 199! I .2d .32. 33 11 (90i i. 19_12j laijil. Thu1 A-liuli Nadiit ClaininsScullllcmi Act ofl 197 1. 85 host tsit 1% icll aidei(li l~it 11 ((i11siiolt Ill 1litip lilt(lit"c Itlight abo11 igiiial ( laitis. ",Ntj('II of tilt-land11( allcc licd In thticsi two ail(s 27. 1-ot it Iti itf ties tisslill of IBia %. id.If % . (:ON of Los .4,L~', , s, 296 9. Alatska's Ctoastal Managcn~iivitli ploi.titl (lotl Hi~tiit stalls, 11101. 1980. llp. 171-18. L11(101)11 ii' ottiplitilotf ii lii land SOL'(i lIO]s bNtheii' .Sltall aiid till 28. .51 laf' I. S(ma rl hi u I. 91 1P.211 SIC2 8117 ) Alaskj 19172i ib1111 iti Alaska Natis s. tlti F-t-dvial Gos'c ntn niuii's owncislhip w sill Ioilliuccll . attounit to abouti 57.o f ttlal] lilti land lin ilti- suttl-.."ltii lIli< 29). Ihere. ']'Iti, is Ionisisilult uiih liii ]ultl' )lolilm5* ill It-dmlto 11is, jowllvt sIt pj kialitgoiN will hi' 11n 1Liii1n. fIt wut-sct. mot isIof lhc 39'I. 6 12 II.2d1 :152. (oasl is (tttteiith [Iin 1979] in ledetial owsnclship). ..and will 3 1. Id. itl 1 353. Itlioil) so," ACNIII .5lpia title' 1. at 257. 32. ibid. (liinitli' ttiiucttit Sini o stuSL-(ti'ijii and palvillilit pllt 111 u h5(5iasi not1 501 bi(11 33. lid. atI 1 153 II. 1. comlplticld. itis Is till miccitaltiin ss'at pio~politi (1)1 if i itasterl 3 1. Id. a 1 13 53-I :1 51 (vi ltl ft tSast I ts J((11. uplailds will ultillalt.l% bc hi'ld hs [lit- 1. niid stats. liho 3 Id. it I135-1 (loomtolic otietiiiii Natises. 1i1W Strall. liiial gos'citiicitts otid pii15a1c pat it'. Ielt'- 36. M/d. phoni- on~vsatio so11 tIlt Jai. 28. 1985. wih (.in Guts(tstaf sont 37. Id. atl 135.1 nA. . catil of land inanagri-titen Dvi-pt im tnt ofI N itulal Rcstoui i's. ' 38. Foti a dcsct iptio jolt Ilti-c andt Hiiitt gcopli it.lixi i iat h iumd. sti' 10. 26 U.S.C. 1,153(a). Hoxvctvi . It-dvia! agt-icli't- ai( iis'l% parti it- i-i. 1 9821. pa iid ii) d(vtl(5 iinpllet o f t Oc- Alut ski C a suaI a aglli I'Pll- 39. Id. il1 3-2. giani. ACNIP, s/nta no(111 1. atl 191-195. in ;addition. billowing -10. 1961 Ops. AXla.,ki Ato (. Cilt Nol. li. tilt Fedtsi01a Gov'e'nm n 15 01)1)p 1 tal odi Stiitsta- poi gIamt. Icd- 1 AXCNII' . .s upm 1n1o)111 I. ,n at 69. via] agctivi ls werev relaunit u- d t. n id i li Colasata Zone11 Manlagc- 42. lid. atl 17-1. entci Aft 1(1 (icin(lit theii amtisiits in it iniantel C osisi-nI 43.I-n a h~i(. dtiiisi Lssiottli i this Icgill d11111liii. wiIoms it(m, us ii ill willh ilit-pti~igt allisotI)jt-tties.(Id. at 224-225. (c1il% Rotnine Indi lau and ss'iioh Ic il l iii a tighli col11- II. 71 Slal. 623:n loiidas% -1 U.ScC I 5 f.01 15) 11 la.siti' i sI t it SI ill ItfI nIhisc sit-Ni. .5/11) (11 1111 11, Ill II 12. -In'll( iiUnii-d Slates icquitijd ilthest icidilands whetii A laskat was V ol . 48. NtI. 4. O ) it tibut 1981). ppl. 18- 19. purchase-dfiorn Russia Uledot thn 'livais of Q-ssioitin 18)17. IS Alaska A.-t . (11. hIit-i lit tomlltisionIvi. las-.Xtkat D1)'(1if Nitt. Stlal. 539. T1hi- I'nit-d Staics I-dlic i' thr demllaites in [eitr ls d(1 ht Rt-souitus datvd lout' 10. 1982. "Muttagtitciii titil U1 ,t Ili futuic staic. Young %. Tou-ij of Jutteau, A Alaskai 372. 381 sttiliitkgtt latitls (,isoaittt Unidc] Sc(lttle 61111 i i) til lIhi Silal - ( 1911). iitttd At I," at 2(0. 13. Ftt a bri-I d-vscription of ili- i-qual-I toning doiancn . si-t Shot'e 45. lid. it I 21. aitd Brat It. Vol. 48. Ntt. 4I. O: tobvt 198(4. pp. H5- 16. 416. i- it Ia ian-f ilisi tissiti till C-Ili lo] 11ia's putltli it IIlist d1111 tII ilt'. 51, Thc Alaska State-hood Att L, 1)a55(l J kj 7. 1958. cxj a tssIN Show) and( lcai It, Vo l . 1)4, Nt . 2..X :kil 1981 pp 11. 22-2:1. pros itcd that Alaska was "adillititd oi n t -ii qtal folting w%-ilt 47. Svci. r.g.. Ma;1A-S s . WIhilpti-. 6 Ii Col.3u 251), 9S C Xt. Rptt 7)4)4. 191 tihi tfictlt Stait-s in all rsjpv( is wha isti . - 72 Sata . 33)4. � 1. S(-e 112dl 37 1 (117 1 ) also Cis' of junraeu %. Cro ploy 429 P.2d 211 Alaska 1941): State- 48. St-i- r .g., P Ioph' sN. Ca I ot out Fjs I Co,.. I(66 C ;l . 576. PI :18 . 79) s. 4.. Itdwsjltt'e~s Inlt.- 397 13'.2d 2801 (Alaska 1I 94I I. (1)413). Thc Alaska Constitution piti'itli-s that "[1 ]affds lint Ind- 49. Alaska Comesi. iii. VIII. � I1. I'lici Alaska Supicitnt (:111l1 ing suhilivrged and 11(101 land,, pttsiusscii ot acquititd InOs ilt aitd: "A (attI tl itoditig of itt lilt ositmi imitial Illilillll-, 'stall- Siate. arid not usi-d 01 intendud -xt htsiss-lN Joe goiciriiiilt-tial lislivs [hatl fli - tISisoltils 01 i lit Ii' Viii wict ilin-itcnt' it) ptli- purposes. iotstituict hit staiv pubicl diltenain." Alaska (4111,. unItI ic lt11oadvst pubIit ilt 'ttNeIo it) aId IIIt I tl tofIit walcld Is II It - art. V'III. � 6. gt-nital ptihlit. l hir bitutg %. .att0'. '16 P.2di 11)11. MIS1-11)4) 14. 1959 Alaska St-ss. Law %% 'h(. 169: (odi fit-d w-ilt ailnildinvitis its 1 Alaska 1)173) (it 11 ii t tit'111ititlI. ir11tltv ig ,It dcld. 519 )t1.2d Alaska Sati. 5 8.05.005 et %eq. (198-1). 801 (Alasko 197 1). IS. Alaska Sati. 38.05.820 (1984). 50. Alaska Stail. � 38.0l.00(b451) j 1)(8l). 16. Ibid. Mu n i ipal iaicis rights andt prn'altt (X (tupanIs, 131pic-i-i t-i . 51 . Id. � 38.05. 127(a )(2) 11)8 I). IXOU (1 stsn titl' a itllso hinocitI(1 [Mi flittia rights to tidelands hast bict-i thtt- stihjcci 1)1 siv-talI Aiaska fin mo siits Cotsliqali-iIinsi()101 it-wi5 alit llso t ti ot n o Supierrt- Court dt-c isitns. Ste. e.g.. State %. (;Iit of Ilamr-.s. 627 nas'igahlic wativ s arid otitir sot Ii lands. lId. k 38.41.0.).821ia1I 1)9S8I). P,2d 1047 (Alaska 1981 ) (I itN ent itlid it) tid-laitds ailjintt Cii ) to 2. Id. � .38.05.820t h)17 J( I1981). arta anrent-xt-d aft-t April I. 19414): Gltv of limpirr s' Stalr. 5414 53. S.5 Stitt. 688: todlivid ats -13 U.S.C. � 1411i~l (.1 wq. P.2d 1316 (Alaska 19771 (c'ity otil denie-d duc prtlt ss IiN d( i - SI. 43 1XS.C( � itil Ii) hI I sitm awsarding cre-tain tidelands to prisatc paitiL with Iw-ilvi- .55 Alaska liable( kEamsomtit Divtfers Faild s. AndtrlI .S. -1357 F.Slip~. entv l ighis rafhiry than to ctl;') Cily of Jouneau %. Crop/u-v - 6411. 6694. 6746-178 ()i) la slk; 2)977 i. I'lit dt( isn Yiii tic: 1 I supra, 429 P.2d 21 (uM- of fillt-dan-a foi siojagc-ol csuiniitittioli toult dots lulle hold[ trialt a onillittoncm11vl lsii iti olt g po11lllito. ma('hiiners constituted a b itfieflialI ust- stin iiing pIiisatc pail% o f luilt- loast Iilit liea% llcsi Ntc sIst ti~~ Setli a tt tv so lit lit APRIL 1985 7 olit-Ih putlilit lait)(] whi( II laN. ofl ( tlisti.i. ilia lild lilt- lands( 72. A\laska Stitt. � 38.05. 135 of wteq. (198 1). tut o iti ied 10 11 lilt, SlW6 lilt- Stiblhlligtr-d Lmiild, Al I. lI h dilli- 7 3. Alaiskai (Oisi. all. Vtill. � 8. tI iIIN lls wIi lilt pltcst-li lI st!I sal I ill is IlialI ii t tits I hoist. (I I Ii 7 1. f ilaton, itnid% A' .\III S Itp loiw oiigh. N Ittra, 154 P.2d1 730. .ia inl AN('SA I. Id. ai 677. 7.5. Ht I( onimiiissionvii s, Iitsi illtctie I dtit-ntinjiaitio is reuijtedtt 3'6. I '..S. Dvpti ol Iiiiitim ANtS' ( 0.5 1 % Sitteiv I11-110 ijutnt 29. Its Alaskai Stii. � 38.Oa.5.13.(d) (I) (198) 198 I. IDiali i. 7)1. Now Flt, em Lototitenti LawIlit: (d,, Eskitnoo I` t/ne Beauftort Sea - 37. .'(Al IP. , )I a I lo~tt I . dit 1.53. H o l e ntd 11. 1 2 (:1 'C A-ALtska I .. Rc%. I 6(7 ( 1982-83). 38S. hi. al I).). 77. /el. at 170-171. lit- stiplellic (iltil "t-lidtostd Ilic idca that Stb- ,')!1. Id. ai I13-3. 1.7)- 138. NSlsItlI. I ( di 115 jI INIt s Iee ictt I tb it elt IlI I N toi isiutred ietotvel citIla rk- 6)1. (I Alaskai AdmIini. Cohtlic � 80.li0601h). iiig tl till) Stl C sidl diI[ hh Oilda t LUCtild lt- illi inl joitI~ d. 61 1 toiedt, %. Niatt, AltqriO. 516 lP.2t I 1191. ai 171. 62 5Ii1 P.2dl at 1 19:1. 78. Ibid. 6(3. It!. il I 195. 79. A tlas ka Stiti . � 38.0-5.170 et weq. ( 198-I). 6 1. I, S,. ( llis. ili . 1. � 8. I . 3. liI hc -dltlt o% vis 1111iell has 80. lII. ~ 38.053.082 et seq. I 98 1). 'lht- sidle dilorllt-v gtineral has pIltil(iitInII 13(1%t- litt itgiialt.t tigas iotllu. (1b/tolot %. 0gltldro, I tut- ithat ibis siEtill t (ilties ]oth trewil all uxl itsise -ight of 1(3 [i.)III wt oI IIIi tItt it? liI. 1 ItII( I Iictlinitia~ls itisiti tiljt- hatik o it4 1983 Jp( Als taska Atix . (;en Nit. 3. is t. is Illictt ii't-d lailka S~igit-Ns wt lew ilIt~tt. 8.17 '~sd8 . Laws Ili. 81; itidifitti wiili atliteodinenits as iu lith Ii o itttt liltist-I HcI toti ittlt- sithiclt t litotut tai it lakc. Alaska Stial. li.000e nq(I8h ,'Ili 1'.2dt .11919 it.l. 82. Esiabl ished inl Alaska Slatt. � 41IA.19 5.I3. 1(il. lei. ti1 I 196. 831. Akliska Stittl. � -16. 10.0110 (1984). BN tilit sptii of t 1985. it is 67. hei. ai I 198. vxpetie lthatid abiou 2(0 disnijet (oasial mnallagemr-lil plogral 168. lei. .ti I 211. Iw iic iti. a atil tilt %a, baw i iti poisiutli ill fit Alaska wvill[a liat- bt-i apptotwet. fult-phtont (on~vesaltili oill Jail. 23, (tosi ii tioittli iletIiing: "No pitti stiisall Ili- iiistdiiitattils di- 1983, sijlili AmNi KN It. atialvsi, Offi( of Citasial \lanagemr-ent, Nclet-d ut his ait] igirit dic list. ttf wailis. his itllitlisi itl latids. itt Stati til Alaska. lilliplt ttiiillcis aftxlinhg, vtiliti . t'it-ltl lilt a sitiptlitil vlt-ifitial 8 I . .Adska Slat. � Ih. 10.0-0() (1984). li'-) tI)Ildi( IttIl 11(Ost atid IlIttil ti iV WuithMIt (lt tteitttii 83. 6 Alaska Admoin. Codtet � 8(0.140. .tiid is opietaiiion ofi lats'.. Alaska ('.ttlist. ai I. ViII. � hO cilliplla- 80. Alaska Stitt. �~38.05.035. 38.05.330; 1 1 Alaska Admnil. Code. sI, adtilltI. 113tvtiieig % . Sate. .tttia. 5 16 11.2td at I1199. i.liI. 62. 69l. Iii. ai 1201)1- 201I tiottitlott ottliittl(h. 87. A.iia.ka %. Af it .1aui. 366 U.S. 199. 203 (1961. 70. j'tti~if't leI(tt. N. (iviosnu I-�teip lis 5tt. 66 P.2t 1 321) 88. lei. atl 2102. (AIluskai 19-77. All ata liii dv( isitoll ttluii illing lilt- sailit. tisplillt. is it-pti it-d it 318 P.2t1 106 I (Alaska 197 1). 4' ~ Great Lakes X ~Dredge& Dock Company o~~s~" A Subsidiary of Great Lakes Intrerniational, Inc. River & Harbor Improvements Flood Control Land Reclamation Coastal Consultants Heavy Foundations S8aqeouSck Blastiheng Studies - Designs - Construction B e cNorsmn Corporate Offices 2122 York Road Oak Brook, IL 60521 1225 Dock Road 312 920-3000 Telex 25-4441 Madison, Ohio 44057 Cable GRATLAK. Chicago Great Lakes Division Oak Brook. IL 312 920-3070 Home of Cashen Cone & Wedge North Atlantic Division Staten Island, NY 201 981 -2700 Established in 1940 South Atlantic Division Towson. MD 301 821 -61 1 1 Dedicated to halting erosion Southern Division New Orleans, LA 504 822-8444 Pacific Division Oakland, CA 415 339-9874 Overseas Division Tampa. FL 813 870-0381 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHORE AND BEACH The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XX: The Delaware Approach B1. 1 PI 1Tz II. I. .( t. ltrt Ii ic San Fian m ,; Caliom D %I lI Nt Utt I )uDLA'VAR I- -I IC I 111 hIl M' SC( )IiId SI tI ii II -A. Uplands D uN (Xt),aisal Ia w. Re eni staiteSupivnet-r (:()tit dJei - (f lDelawarr''s 21.5 tflill'sotr satidy beat II l)ordetiing the S10115 ittlti ( oisal lt'g-ishiatnot illusliale tIIIs anoillav. Atlantic ()ttlen horn the( mouthi of Dtlawart' Bay lo tile A sut lrpris i nglIy large pi oprt t ioiI] of tirhe vala tble oc'ean - Mar I lat d blorder., 12 mli les are w i I I i in Sltait- parks." TIiese II Clnf uplands andi( adjacent bieaclies along the Diamond parks encomp~ass Some' so -ca]led 'ulclands'' - State's 21.5-milic-long Atlanti Oit vari coasi are, public ]~ II &i IIads notI gr air ed i III( )I niva I(' ow' Iv tIII)u dun tiIIg the owned dut. to ill(, histol i~~~~~~~~al (Illil illiai Peir. or hs prpl Ntirsi not retied r) 1)ri~ate palties In tiit' colonial authorities -atit art am~otg tirt' stawtt's tmolst p)1pulai viitatiOti bt'fow IIIhe Revc i ltiolioaly Winr. ;Hill. Yi't. Iin still k t li inu. Ii~i 4f tlit- lottshowt' 01 title-- lit addition to its Atl~tric l)arrict- islritin bvtallih', the( l~il~is I~'tl'~t Iinitstal's h I thr's D J ftlvaware av atit state's shoreline indudes 33.5 miltes along the D~elaware III(, 1)(1illa t. River IS IIIivaw heX eltd kitdter a State I titI of Riveri and 57 tni Its a long Delawvart' BaN. Most (if the( Ipropelt evtstliblishled tIllo fne ial] a cent trrv itgo tllat ella- coastal utplands adjoining Ilit' rivet and bay are privately hitS rliihoadls and otht'r fi Nisatc uipland oWl(tI1 s t extend hetld. althroughi their' irtt several federaIls owned %vildlift' tiit' limit of1 their mvirtiship down to the nean low'-water refuges along the( hay.'` littc.2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~Over a1 spall of almost a decade, itwo- levels of the NNtvt'tlwrlr'ss~, Dciawat es (Ahilstatl Zolt' Awt.' the -or- D~elaware juichiciar struggletd w.ith diverse historical, tlit'til~lt ofi tlit stat's ("Imstai Mallagelttn'i Pt Iogratill legal, eq iii table' and senlaml It ssues raised in a fascinat- (o)JItallS Soni1c of lit' nwis[ "llingvIlt rt-stilmolls of altly Itig cast' involving applroximnately 13 acres of oceanfront Sm11( Iiltgislatiol tiallm Svilt't, Jil ldilltg it flat ptoliiiiititil lptopur'ty ibc'tet'rr Btethany Bacmh and Fenri~ck Island iln (mI].X huv illdt]l N along the( sh I i tt Sussex Courltm Iti 1973) thet Cour of Chancry, a trial-level equity (ourt, first adtlttsst'] tIll' question' of the legill status of TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN this propetyn~, whtII had riot been grantedt into privalte THE COASTAL ZONE ownershipi liy the coilontial jpoprietois, ix.,. it %was still unct'ded at tilt fitnit of the( Re'volu tionl. Th Irough its D~elavwai c's ( xastaid /Am~t- A(t tI'efi uts tite sta ti's ctastal IfJig1hiwav IDelartnineur t tlie, StaI lawimemd it oWned the( ion' ''as all thI at area (If thr state, whtthet' iandt, watler of (dispu tedt plroptrty by vi rt t' of its sovereignty. Oil thet stibaq]ItotIs land bet weeti tllt ttrraionn al lirnits tof Dela- otlrtr hand)(, two urarried ( oiplt's - Emmons B. and Mate wvat e in tht( DI~eaware Rivet. Dlkclawart Bay and Atlan tic T . Phintli"1 anti Blainre T1. anti[ Janet (ozaid Phil lips - o ( tar, antd aI lantlwatid line foritt he fy cer tain ... high- Contt'tidedti hat thNan ahei pttit'ecessors had Ibecti in wayris attd toads ...' ext lusive possessionr of tille bt'a(ii tract simet 1 896.11 lw Slaiw's (.ostaii NMalagellirt-l Prograti dt ich)umenl t Dulingti nta roednt'Cor fcacr rt'ers to ilht Zonre as the ''t astiul strip.' noting that1 it Is anilidapit'viousiy undtcidt'd legalqcues' gt'it'tall% about 2 mriles widt' along thet shoitlitie,7 hut tiori: the intialttli of the legoal Itights I in l ntdt'd laends bn-d tirait its wvidth "%a 'ait's... from iafe Irwutdidttd yards n rth ir William Penn anie Ihis. lit-its betfore the( R('volutio ofI Wiluiingt itn to about 12 ttilt'sin tht' M mutlreastt'ni pal l t nitet writrten instrutnents dlating bac-k to 1682.16 The of tirt' state.' hiant ellor on(clntitt thatl ' 'Peirni's 'private'] title was GoastalIi i ad a elglylsiida pltd, isfa befor n gvrmra povt'rsdtlt'ivetlfrom littlantds andc subtilt'rgc't lainds." thre Bi itish crowni o1 othervisel' atic whbet thet liatter e'tdt'd, so dii tlrt forrniet.''ui Itt addi tiont, tlit' chancellor cited af series of statutes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I . . . . .....d (ar t i t Ig ftIof ir 1 793) itndt ourI - truinIg s (si ict'( 1 797) holIs teI - h t .I . ..... 1, I g I Id igris of) IlI IIof tI II tIt Ih IRIevoluI IIIotI I IIath endI Ied *'Ilt'II PennII I "...... p..' III I o '.'I id. r.p... I.i rIh, -~~n~ ii -.d ... 11 ... ..... 1, I . . . . . .~l)V~t' Ib ovlto deal wi-llthe tt'titee ht'irads'', and that the State( sir~ ~ ~ ~~~~~S Ii ir.rr.' i.I, n ..,'j. (~~tolItseist'lly hadtit sst'rt('c s~t,.t' po~vl)5' andt julisthittitlt -i-Igl I. ,wI..'rr' III. I"' 111, li"I, III., Mei r~rrOtI st( hr laberth., JULY 1985 9 (ill St'qJI It'lls, IIe IC our t of ChanI cery den ied the( Phil liv wIi' ria (k. I lit -illlhIs~igi -lI t wmv /I II M11,1i(ld die Htct."' 0" appeal, thle Delawsare Supreme Liii' P.11-11i0rsl Iifunl n /1W/ titi Si(. 1"r, aiii,? mai1.n itig li (otit iii 197I arlliriti'd tile judgment: 1,1id ill iliplileic ilIwit 4haii I'l fitll. -' fla~ i iwtis tk Mlk qiiestioi asd li-,(0Ntr[ijiclt, iidig ne P ainistakinigly, rite Stiprenrue Couir I dlissct ed ffici des- ha~itt t i i P('ln til efr heRvluin. i 4(0 (if the Ipmot'r-I laniguage iii Ili(- twoi atii( it'iit :1i(f trIt t'I liti~, however tit hbvoe [tlillies' baso tion-. grants iii qutestioni: I lie Si,-Caillt't "Salt Meadow v ictt' tt'itiii W~~tilliamiIeiisitetsipt Delmaiaelanld and thle ' Cotnforrs Pastille PaU"ent.""~' A\geinirg w i tit wa IS . Im atu tighi erijo )t't il hies private, capacity. L heIiwrcrts In epeat(mo h atng.tft ilistii~riiisiofyin i a po /itj a / right hield iln his plib/u high court held that thet w ird 'bcac: I' in r he Salt NMca- tapa its is [it, Iflitih lo~tr wn's] grantee of tilt 'propric- dow [patenit] description wats not irtnIVIIidd to lie vri - ii 4' i fooi'~ sthichI 1ds Ito become the State of Dela- on VrnonLs wi tit '.shore.' '1 Alter similarly, reject inrg ti-ic IlieStipt tn Cout cocl~dd 'that by right of soxer- 'patenrt descriptive Ilanguage, rthe Suprenli Court coin_ (Iign suti (i.sston, title to thet lands in dispute passed from cluded *'that no rtitrtr to) ton'VeN Io tile foreshore [i.e., tilk' Pentn lit us tit theState in It776.'2i Whiller reecting tile tidelands] c-an ble gleaned from th ,e Lice of the parents as, Phill ipses' pilea tiiat Ilegal precedent required a holding a matter of' law,'' ari[ ''that the wvord 'heath' ats used in that thle Phenn title to thle tract survived the Revolution, the patents wats not intiended Io metanthe c area ibetw('ef JII th ustieres noteCd that ''C usin ocrigthe basic high and( low water tiark.- "' natuLire oft Ithe Penin title, atidt lie impact of the Separatioti lThe SUtprt'rne (OLrrt also denied tile lPhiill ipses' alter- onI that title have bleen raised before [lin earlier court native (larif bialxsed oil all adverse po ssessioni theory.,12 tcist's ." Ati 18 1: Dela ware i sta lttLe:I ' .'til ov idud thaitt ad lveSC p)0s lit what Is known as ''a case of first impression'' - that session ( ould Ile (ratitied against the State 'exce-pt for IS, a judicuial dec isiort on previously undecided legal saltimarshes; and after the182aermntrhwod issues-the SupremeII Court stated that such questions 'beach or shore' were added ito the extt'ptiorr." ''-i-lite ''have never heern judicially resolved; they have remained court, po()inting flit [flat tile Ia w per'rmittinig advo'rse unanswered ever since thley were first raised, but never possession hadf been repealed in 1953,i~, stated ihat, as a reached, in 180123 ~~~~~~~result, It weoultd have beentriencessary for thle reqltisite After this 197-I Supreme Court decision, the case 20-year periodl ii possession under' Delaware law to returned to thle lower Court of1 Chancery, and the Phil- hv eu y131 lt tihcutuhl e(tr fipses chatiged thieitnin thruist of their attack, nowvclaim~- of Chancery's fitiding that thet Phill ipscs had failed to ing that the, .at-d their predlecessors had exclusively pos- showv that, be.fore threy took possession iii 1939, thieir sessed the d isputed oceanfront property since at least predecessors had beenl in possession tJluirig 1933-39.", 191 2.24 ThIe trial court, denyving thle state's motion for Accordingly. the adverse possessionl tiliev ldid riot sup- sumrniary j odgnIentI andc notitig that the action had been old Phlps,(Trfagitlicsaeii p)ending almiost 12 yvears, remarked in a 1979 opinion: pothePilipe' atuagiste at.~ 'lHopeftiliv, this tnatter is at long last now ready for trial.-''5 It Was indeed finall-v tried in 1980, arid thle Phil- B iead lipses' kiuains werte denied after the trial. Otnce again, the B iead case Was appea led to the stlate Supreme Courrt. G n r l y iead r rvtl iud't1va itt 1982 I)elawarti's highest tribunal affirmed that Geeal' Idea~saepratl we nle judgttentt lii favor of the state2.'16he decision rejected ware, as is the (ase itt several other Eastern Seaboard all Of thle PhillIip)SeS' var-ious legal theories, iriciuditig states.i'" Ini a 1969 decision. State ex rel, 13tcksopi v. the calairr that at least part of the disputed parcel had enyvnaalraC. tesaeSu em Cot passed to thecir predecessors in title as a tnatter of law rldta rvt padoie,1 iteo i titder ancient parents. TIhat argument rested on thle littoral or ripariai p~roperty' rights, holds title to the p)remtise thatlthe patentts describ~ed thelproperty as iteirig adjoining tidelatids, or foresliore, down to thet low- on te bech''arid'alog thbeah.-27 -'['he Supereme water mark. 'This appears to have been the fitrst tiitte (:[i blc" aougrth beach: that thle court had ileent called ott to rtile delt'iritivelv onl ..[lie- subiihsi (tii of Iflit'irI potsitihmn is [tellt tilt' . . this pan icular issue,bluttepivt'o er ip irct descipitainl w~ntaeitth( ~i'isit'tstrte. li ws already well istablishit'd In thle state-. siont thli difte asit-rII houidillait's rut to fit' high waterI As the L)eilawvare Supreme C:outrt said. '''[his rule, of tritalk alont, filt' Atiairtic 0A cal - this,, bei'aotsc the word proiperty has p~revatiled tunder titt de(tisiotial law of this ,hea t' Iicrrtllrs th tic,1tI b'tieneat the hji4/ (ated /nti' wial'r Stake, tnicriticized arid tit( hallt'rged, for- trbore tltanti pattrns.' It aboiluf hillow thiat if the- ()own I() the hig oettiyi citing lower Court dec'isOns in 18,51, 1854 wViie I ItIr , tI 14iCrI I l)('lawatt' V ripr )itI an LIaw. I t-~XA's IonIi and 1882.1-' Even the U .S. StIprT'rit C;ourt, itt a 193-1 twitl io the( Iow wateritiat uk. Nale rx ri'/. llutkit~on I, interstate botirndary cast', rt'coigniiz(d that, ]in gt'neralI. Pe'niis/i '(il a 1111Inad (;I., lIef .Suiir., 2ti7 A.2t1 l) ' inr Delaware, ltein ie New jesy tIt't i i)tsi (19fi. flit- Coiir r ui (11:h ert try r rt'(11 st~itt'd 'lIt is jiiiy tthe riarar ttiil- ictor.'' c qitesriorr ... is sitripl~~~~~s wloliet tiln' wooltir ''heai /it rr" IrI t-Sie Iot) I. .rw Sit 'eI II vI v Irrr aIrI itt-w ofii [etu t~If--- 'I, j ith regard to tidelateds riot drertited to be part of thl' Eiritt'xt, trreilrts the latilliend highal antIr rlow' %Buiie adijoininig private upilanid ownrers ptiop)t'ty bet'arrs of itnarks.' lint- Revoltntioniary War grants,, )t'lawvare was vested ''int Penn.%VlvIi'ani i~aillfwd (Io., ill/na, (iiis nrt Witlli title to stuch larids withii i its 1))rlders on J ulIy 41, heltf thtat '.Behore' aruaitia rtel ,rrea birwoent thet Itish ;id at1 776i.11 10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHORE AND BEACH C. SubMe~rged LadMs Si4 1115 (all HtIcIs ir ig ''tIhe ax'erIage dail INcgh II C.' lo wvatti mat Ls ovec a'' 23-y'cape ])itco. ifiitialc.' 1c'II( fultiital Sulictit'g'(-d L~ands Act of 1953,1 (OWi f111it d nd ht t' lominioniit allt!d (otiirl 05(1 s111- lili ('l hnd 5i15tt(I4) gog a ii t a inl~s tc n li' C. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location (oasI. Ihu state's claicci I toin' acec bcvxoid rIh 3-11ijlc' of the Shoreline licIci to) [fth- Scawva (,xixemc ofI Ainlc i( inl I i s lclo was - te w d In tit( l'.S. Spitcrcntn Coutli inl 1975.11 11cgataitlc(eiid iistil chliatgis knownl aS Mc ( C[ '(Mt anld utosill csultil nt a13 lvoilt, tidal limill- (Lit vill Dulawalte as Ili citlccr ( oasItil suales. Sc'vc'tal of thw D)ETERMIINATION OF TID)AL BOUNDARIES log Sul.. set-is ofI Pcimvcylca ia Ralb'oad dlciic(c totu II o)iI tlcis S(c-( ailed "Ilmicoicc. boccidaci S tl'.' A. U'plaind T'idelancd Boundary II is siclii(wlal cIlmihat, lcowcvcrl. NNhetiicci oilv italic- I'it. ~is (discilicgcilshcd(f Iill a]ttill(ial LII. i iclsetct'rs of l ic Altlcouigh DIIaNmc is amonciccig t h~eIatidlul of oasiacl sIltccliihi thii ll i a le-gal boundiclINt cllclccg. sta0's crc whi(c hu cl owc-Nvaclc thinak isdwl'alvic legl" ' 1ICc 01Wc dlisscinttcg jisti t, Iti tlic' slate Stiprenic bllmlalN it-vfctw'i-e1 publli( acid] plivact' property cwit- Couic 's 1971 scipplcmnicial opinion Iit lPcmvivlc'amia shiip.4' not all of ilic' piivaji(+l' hlcd lands, neat illce Sutec's Hailcoad asserted litla ''ulc Railroad hiold." tilil to ilic ((last extund wvaterwa id to that Iiltie. AS ment ionedcal t- ccaftia ilccaci low water litt(, I.c. tw IcMIAW as it vxi'.h'd ltici, ithe stlate hatitflec it) om511't-astal up;land p~roplltty berfor tht fillinig opw(I a Ioic was omlttim'ted."'1'1 Ncvver- thlat hail 0(o been ceded into private ownertship belowe iicless. In thait (ase, the( trial Court found[ that the stalte rice- Ametricac Revil utiotn. Tcnla%. such propem, IV - "had fatied to) establ isih by it Impre oriderace of th m''i- ainattis l"publi( hinrl, cds bN1( [fithe State."~ dcn( c the location (If ilth NILXV il 19.54.'' icittcdlictl~ Ill Sm ch alevcs, III(e Ic atficci tf the( upiland, tideland belole thec railroad bei.galc fillitig ithe foteshcot'.''- oiottdait cdtocstcc not appeial toI it e signi f italt pi obllct Er (o1cin is all issueW addiv sse-d lbv D)laware, StamtiorN bcaijuse tin'stat, loon ald~ccttdlands by virtuec lawv and( ill its Coastal] Mallageentil Pl~ograill doctt- of its sm-cvetigImicv s on. of hIlc original states. mcli. 'I It( state's BeachI Preservation A( I of 1972. its (0(1if ied ,~" enqpowix-s the( lepartrien t of Nat ural Re- s(Iu(CeS and Eltisilolilicnetcta I Contiol) to *'preven I arnd B. Tideland 'Submerged Land Boundary repait daniagecf hotrri eosioi cif public hbeachvs."-1_ Coill- 1)1hulsix-~c' p)01 i(s II'S fa] uing ithe establishmentrt of IDuring its ea rlN days, Delaivai c departed from th ha isine ect it din e hacka Ii tiealug thewcast, usual C oicliion -law" Iol dia] that pi ivat upland cxiwiersicip aile act iciclatd inl tlie- Iclawait, Coastal Management al n -i -ida aes extends Ico tic( higi -wte mark-, ats Program l."' Nc cosIt ttI ral VIOe (Siolito o110 mintl iods ace tncicntioiced above. Th'lcc Suite Scuplenic CourI's 1969 Pen- prelercl IcoxclvSt st(llc tc (s.`~ no/ nl t in Railroad opi nioinex)lils . 1. c [Ihln aci am It il I ac ianI I Liplaicd I cowIc Ir of livcid fcci I(IIcIc on Ili]vigitcIIIc Ic, tidal I walcc III)]ds IcitII(' to dIeI DELAWARE'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE ta'sv bc a cist. it casht% foliwia t lcmgnici~d m ileof p)1p1 trust docirtritn inl that suite. Undcidr ticis It-gal concept, ('c cIN loicc aidult(-( tic icc tlic Stace, affec tirig land tralcs- ;cctioisaci laic ci~eslo ccii cn~t~cS. iiirol IWhi hi is rooted lin European continiental civil lawvatnd ljc--icc ac c cjicd Im tlic Bmac cc Bcuilt Itc of cra lis Sc''cwith- esol ve-d undeci the Enigl ishi commiton law, the public icas ()ict cot u tisic' (; anl~licg' id extenlsivet pco-I cccirc\th rigict to utse tidal watet s for certain jpurposes.,,(' tiglics, aicif laccd ltitcs liuivi Iucc-c stI'clild in chepundceni The public trust doctrine waso(ulv briefly cuentiotned 1c1cocc it. Mlcccc'cvc f lic (wicciiah Assecitublv I ltigislitcic-] in tli(' vnarious Pemtisvlt'ania Railroad deciSionls.6' Dur.- hcim not S(.(.Ic fit tclocaicgc-" ilcis c ticle cithcop-icc clcoig'lc ing this lenlgthy litigatioic, which involved tice( rail- asc icicimcdi aiiic r adc/ali[. I Io/xi'~'i1 . 1PaM Joa/. rciadh's riglct to fill at strip of tidelands inl the( Delaw-are .7 DO.' (:lc. 3.) -15.51 as loccgagi cet as 1892. R eivt , the stlt (' Supreme Cc urt inl 1 969 embraced Ilcc lIc h~cic cl is Iccc ticw fcc- cc) disitialIc[lit- ciccic-- lowet court's coli futsion that ''the State's common lawv holiccodcc I icli-cc ccc[ c cvp(II Iwccinicclc '11ic'i k; . RklisN of (oi(elpt of control" andt the state's reliance up)oi Ian- Iccccl~c'c c~ . i-scilclislcc-cuaby dcc icctl aw ccd citi'a ena 1919 P~ennsylIvan ia cast, did not req uire- tfe i'~ cpc cc cictjcillctgicscicscc tolcic cclii~ itraili]oad toobtaiii ticestatc-'splertiissioii before fillitg.62 cccj ccca ci t' dcu icitids cit juslist ci. Omitcis licsc a ixic lint lice 1982 PhIllips case "' thle D~elaware Supreme ictscilicgtclgc-ccalc-tilix~ttcc ici cccclcvilcticccidcoccrt allucded to the general pUbli('s rights ill [Ile Sti- Icccctiec cv, icc chi~~~~~c-aisiiciiacccc.rtiiic-tdd clled ''public laricds.' alonig the ocanhfotit that had not ;icdii v ...'~~~~~~~' beeti gratit d i nti)priva tt cownershicp before the Atneli- IDcla wa te chas wta lla cappeas locbe a tlin itl tt'citt ttdocc catR'ohtlic .lc' ih(crsdciocsp eapo- (dclinitg tlci 'Ii watec rciatk (ocI clictlairc lccw waecl illgl% of tlce lower(. couli 's findircg theat Ithc Illhillipses, chicak Ic ccic'eral low" waterl cicntkl.'",' Ilc collilast to tlci' 'piedect'ssccs itt title [hadjecigaged iii such actividtis on JS'.0- cIt 19-yeaCi tidal tCictM tc Sirally utfii-ed tcc (leICci' the dispurted palticl its liitirlitig, gatheriirg. fishing, tIilap tidal bocicttdat its - as ecm-iiilllifid bN thccI- fdulal Borax pici'g. oySteillmug, arid Sw%-ictljritcg.''6c riilc51 wich tcvclvc-l tfc' (cliciticu of lce 'ccriuia ', t'je rin tli(- Plcillipses' altrative clraini tlcat they hi igih-wa tc' Itcc ck"' - P'cn ccyv Ic -act al ?ai/oad (ast dtic i - lceclad a~uset N pslv1) sestsed' the dispu ted ce anfiiront land s, JULY 1985 1 1 thIIe S Iprie ICot IaI :i t epI lted thIIe lower Court's finI dinI g LEASING AND RE(;ULATION OF thatl these adtivitjeS were "'Inerelv 'tile same activities COASTAL ZONE LANI)S AND WATERS that any them her of thle jul ibi wi )uId likely engage in Ott puLblic lns''~ A. Leasing "f[Tingran ted submierged t idelatnds ownved by th is PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS State, whe1t her' with in of lbevOnd [itsl honM11 IdrtS" tt-av hie leased for tinercal exlploratitot and exploitation by, TIhe Delaware Coatstal Marnagement Progra ii states: tihe go)vernur and the sert'tary of the Dela ware W~pmrt- ''l~lawaes tlatuc arricl heach isteSae\hs iett of Natural Resouics tand Envirioninentita C:oti- itttpo4rltattanlt ail ond 1(16Vlilited outdoor Ite retiollal troI.71lThe -[S]ecretary [life issuie o Il and gas leases tesourtie...lbhs . .. bead Ilt ae lies witultin. a davsd i 'e underlying the Atlantic shore, ' and 'iay .g rant of omer 21 tuilliott pjeoplc. I'lteteate 2..) ttilliot attittil easemlents for m1inleral exploration aind exploitation isits to thle coastal area... under-iNIng that lpart of thle Surfaces of the Atlantic Shore ''...aiyau poitivo ~laaeshatst owned I1v the State at SUCII times, and at such plilaers as r~t Waltmtgott Bltittoe,~ttd Iltktd'ljltt tk'tO- [lie] finds necessary to p~ertmit [fie extraction atul tratis- poltanates. tttle wilt ltefac tat n a avrao'e portatiotl of oil, gas, Sulphur or other ttdterals fromt NIttutue~r iweekettd 70% of tihe %isitors to thle Sussex State, federal or private Jlands.'7 Conttttvcostal areal ale frottt out-of-state, ttake these A one u t h eaaeCatl.lnteun shtorcsrsotetttaialigtfatcitadtono Program (10loHCttett: b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ein tto at o lteatesrsdnsatetoty ''1eware (olttriblttes sigttilicalttly to [ite Uliiike tanaty other coastal states, "'Delaware is fortu- Nation's tpie a rlae lod(lntott. I hi, t otitriit nate to own a substatitial amount of shore anid beach t iolt nlaN met olttt mtow trigmtifio atit if oi attd gas alte land, particularly alotig the coast, which is readily distoo ered offshore. itt butt i(ulat ifllthey ate dicovered acesbeto the p)Lbl ic,'' according to the state's Coas- ute eaaesstmmme ad ~ t esmgo tal Managemenit Progratm document. ''There is, at pres- State lattds for miittevral xir. etatiott w~il Ibhetomct imupom - enit, plen ty of publicly accessible beachfront in Dela- tttot feotmtua esbettatt ism titrl ware."6 But since increasing development arid publicat.dsoer." demand may tnake the supply of public access inade- q~uae lii the future, thle Coastal M'vanagetenet Program B. Regulatory Functions calls for the state to ''undertake efforts to provide such access .'' ... 1 Delaware's coastal Lonle lands atid waters are subject Recognizitig the ''conflicts arising between day-use to a variety of regulators, prograrns. visitors and coastal [private] property owners,'' (lie '[lie Delaware Coastal Zotte A-ct (CZA) of 1971-," is DCMNP dIOCutnIIen states that, as a result, ''some shcore- significant for a nIumber Of reasons. Of partic Ular line property (is] beitig c losed to the getieral public.''69 importance is its flat bati oin ''new heavy industry In Thle DCMIP docuIMent says: '. [L~ocal government [the state's bay and coatl esvhi idur s has attempted to remedty this situation by requiring determined to be intcomtpatible with thle protection of public access caseenetits alotig private beaches as a coni- [the] natural environmenrt in [thle state's bay and coas- ditiomi to developinemtt approval. The (IueStiomi of Who tall areas."''9 The law also states that ''prohihitioti should pay for this access anid what, if aniy cost-sharing against bulk produIct trajisfer facilities in the (oastal arrangements should be made have yet to be resolved.''70 Zone is dleemed iniperative.''11 With regard to uses allowed utiter thle Delaware (lZA. permits rriust he obtained front the state.6t Tlhe statute PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS enumerates %various factors, such ats tile enIvironmentACal irtpact, econotnic effect anid aesthetic effect, whichi are As thle previously discussed Pen n~sylvamnia Railroad to be considered by the secretary of the Departmr'nt of Case~l uemonstrates. private upland owners in Delaware Natural Resources and] Etivi rotin"Intal Control and thle generally Own waterward to the low-water mark. In -State Coastal Zotte Indtustrial Control Board."M effect, this state rule of property means that, as a private 'Fihe Beach Preservation AXct of I1972,Tj another comti property right, at littoral orI ripariani owner Of upland p~rellensive statut(ory SChettie, deaFlms wVith beach erosiont frolntitig Oil tidal waters-after first having established cotitrol. Under this law, ert-ain ''acts de.structioe of that fie is in factl a Ii ttoral inr ripariati gnner-is also bahs aeitd sill scimisT Cj~ittc entitled to have title to thle adjacentt foreshiore, or tide- tioti of anv kitid' 'Seaward Of i tte-ecie ' 'uilditig lantds, not as a result of ant express grant from colonial line'' generally paralleling thle coast Is pirohibiited or state govertnniental authorities, but IIere`l% because unless a pertuit or letter of approval is Olbtailled fromit he is the upland owner.7-' thle Departenett of Natural Resources and EnVir-oitnenl- Private owners in Delaware also have certain other tal Con~tr.olo rights, subject to thle state's tegulatory autttority."t Another law, the Wetlantds Act,$6 requires -state per- For example, by statute, littoral own(teS have theC light tinits before certain specified ac tivitie~sare utdertakent in to ''own and hold all bulkhecads. dotks, whdai-,es, bui Id- tile State'-, Wetlanids.0? Ihle activities thus regulated are ing and piers ... oil tile frotn Iof their Ilittoral lIholdinigs , ' dredgitng, draimtimg, filling, bulkheadimtg, comistrttc- and [to] lay any steatnboat, vessel or olther craft at tlte tiotitiofaniykind,iiticludiiig)buttiot limiited tocoistituc- ,Same, t~~~~~~~~~~~~~ion of a pier, jetty, breakwater, boat railp, Or tnlit~litg, SHOREf AND BEACH IIIit i (I g, ot (-X(mtatiottt . l Ap)ptIi(atiofls foi It hits ate itt I)MAP. s~prta nowic 1. at pi. 11, � 5.A.2.. p. 1. mittde It) itilt wc: i-ary of Ilit Slawc Departmueiit of Naltual I I. lid. at lir. 1I. � 5.3. I., pp. 1-4. Thtese "puit latfi dsac(od Rcscu tuc es alld Ettvitottnuc-wa] Collrcin)] atnd Itc-11i spuit- a li uvau-mew tondei the DelIaware Coa stal N aianag-etrivit Pio- Hills~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g ala nu whicach sah se eraiaIad ccolg Ihc 11"-d ulitoe tntvics ln n~~~~~~~ttii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tishd hi tjwttd(1i iewl vt~ ir~i ttci use. Id. at p). 4. cnutial Appeals Botd." I 21. lId. at pi. IN'. pi. 2. 13. 1--edtl laudcs ate- exclude-d frontt tilc- slawe's coastal tioti- udimicta pritsi onti ofI tile' l(-dural Cotastal Zonie A~t~gtic' it (ifc 1172'..as ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~~~~~~attic tdu. I1i U.S.C. � I 45'~a). Svc stipra ttcite 2 itcgaidting ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~~~~~~~~~gosctitncrttal ownrivship of ati t-stiintaicd 25% of thet uplandcs along rut D)eawart. Bai~ ard D~-Alwalt River sltocclittts. Thct aitdtot is'iacild iio Da 1;vid S. IIrg Ill, piog 11l 1. Statfe Phl/llps., M305 A.2d tIll (Dk!. C'II. 197.i Ina apk e, tlwaic' Coastalf Mallaguncttwt Ptogtatt, 15. Id. at I I) .~) Dt-pamut-wof~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~t~.tca Nigilta of ttlu-toal (ard imin jha s oi ttaac sfol ( ottol, jtttd Jm tit ). NltcAtlm (O. tlointlt at law fil(f W ililiamr P'ennt iti August 25, 1682 hit llimis both ithin the (Iid. 11vtsIjgathiv atmd cittis-litig tutl , Divislion of tw-v-tl iiI-attit h ietctNew-C'as1tleand Sciciht f and fot utet dc')pI\i tlm t gtuaslatc of Dclawatc. Yoitk hy Kiig Char ftslI]oflEnglandoti IN~iatif22, 1683. Prilot to lot pltoxidittg sotit ol di-soitn(c malteralsmcitd in thusta in.th-l kofor ha fwttncitttcos pses no rtich.t tic- atIds(ccp fo ah fpeid i 1673 1674 ft 010 Stpept cut c 3(t, WA6 w ftcn htc took t hrni front ithe Du r th.' Ibitd. , citinrg. REFERENCES 361. 17. 305 A.2d at 649. 18. Id. at 651-65-1. I . Du)la wares "puLi lt andc!s" atc t-ptoptrt i-s a lortg the- Atl(anttic 19. Id. atl 655. Colast fin--wi-c tCa[( pI Iv leIcpcttn an ti -mnwir Is slartd whtich have-( 20. P/htillips s Staire- x re-1. lDep 'Iof Nat. Be,11c. 03tA. 2d1 3I, 139 (1974) nt-vet fi-t i trantslrr rd frot citiltlc- publIic dii ia ii. They (ourrc-nt I (vtn pia sis added; foot tntolf cmiitted). tlic Judfi- tic c Caprt H en! cpen atit Dc- (aware Seashore Siate- Parks 21 . Id. at 14I. antd Jim it ioits of t iltt Assa wor-cani Wi Icd ikI Area." Dele-aware- Uoa.c- 22. Id. at 143. ta/ Alaniac,-c- nterc Progratmc and Pinal Erttirornmenital Impact 23. Ibid. state-,cte-,t Pt. II, k 5.3.1J., tt.I. ptIl. IN', Ill. 2-3 (1l979) j hereillafter 2-I1. Staff, v. Phillips. 4001 A. 2df 299. 301 (D~el. C:It. 1979). itccd as D)CMI']. 25. Id. at 31 ft. Iti lengtfiv lirigaticin c utitinatitig iii Ph/illip.e v. Stairecx Tel. 26. l'/rittipsi s Slate- ex re-I. DeP't of Nat. Bec,449 A.2cd 250 (1982). De-pt of Nat. 11c. 149 A.2d 2,50 (1982). the, Delaware Supreniv 27. Id. at 252. Court uptield rfte staltes ciwiciship~ (if 13 acres of occanftorit 218. Id. at 252-253 (emphasis addedi. p3r o IlertIN la i med hp pivNate pa rtIeIIs u n fc t varIIo u s IlegalI t Ie o rievs. 29. I d. ati 2 53 -2 54. A s thIIe co urt explIa i ned: "Itt dt-Ir ntIi rIiin g r Iviite I in - I-or a disiussictt of this recent decisioti and ic 1)1 three earlier dc-d meaning of the word 'beach' in the parentsl, we mtust Itc'w it dcc isioris in ilfte sacnoc' ease, scev "Uplanids" under *Title to Lands withitt it,. contextual framrn-work. Id. at 253. Withtiti cIte (Coastal Zoi.",' inifra. 3 0. ld. at 2.54 (eimphasis added). 2. DCNMP, supta otici I, at pi. 11, � 29.13., pp). I1-6. pt. W. p). 2. 31. Ibid. (emnphasis added). A scries of five state Suptreme Ccicrr aric trial c(ourt decisions 32. Id. at 255-256. feivevwcii 1967 aic! 1971 reaffirmned this arcic-nt rulc-of pircptrty of 33. 9 Del. L.aws 454 (1843). henttfiiting t ivs-ai littioral andf ripariati pipciirty owners. For at 34. 449 A.2d at 255. disc ussictr of Iifie Suprceme Coo)Lt i's dve-ision iii Slate- ex rc(. Buck- 35. 19 DO-. Laws 386 (1953). son v. Petnmvvr'amta 11.R. C7o., 267 A.2dc1455 (1969). arid Supple.- 36. 4419 A.2d at 255. rnental decisioti. 273 A.2d 268 (1971), attc tile pricir trial cocurt 37. Ibid. dc-c isicits, see( " idelaucfs" undere Title iii Latids Within tde 38. Id. at 256. Coastal Zotc-' attd Tideland 'Subuicgt-gd Land Boicundat -, 39. I-or brlief descriptions of tidelands ownershiip rutles itt Some of unticli -D ieatrrtiznt iint cof 'Iidea Bciundarics iecjra. these, it hct Statels, scc' Shtore acid Becach /V ol. 50, No. I . Jan ua r Of rfiet apittoximawel 90 milies of upl~andcs alctrg tit(- Dc-lawarc- 1982, pp. 13-14 (Massachusetts): Vol. 52, Nci. 3, July 1981. pi). Ba 5 an Dtcl )Ia wa t ( Riv vet shocre-linitts. ati vStni ntt -c 221.5 lntifs at c 1 7-18 (NIainrc); Voil 53, Not. I, Jan uarv 1985. Pi) 8-9 (Virginia). uiwniicc li variciti h-cIsf guovc-rnmentt, ranginrg frittl t hi- nitec-cf Orther East Coast states in wh ic t idelandis arc- generall) in pri - st aics to ttiluttt ipipaliic.clilivs1 clhric- mcitt -'sat ~it to(n May 6. 1985,. N ate owsuctshti p ate Nc-w H-arrmpshtit- ancf Pc-nnsy!lvantia. Tht-st- ,Ssyit ft ct i- I). IMim Artlit, attiorricsN at hi w a tc!ei t (10 intvesriigat ivc' Sla tes htav nor ci yc-t hee.- t it- Subject oif installmenc-its titi this5cr it-s antcdciti sc-HISiriH it IitIiisiitcirtcitrAfasD-trtmtt bitt 5cc' Shtoe' and Be-aciI, V'oI. 48. Nco. 4, Ciec ichir 1980. PPl. I 8. 20 cif Cctrirtunitits Aff airs. and (cit mit dc-ptvt atorncyic- gt-ntcta I, Snatcll- i. of I Lmc-lawat. 4(0. 267 A.2cf 455 (1969); see( alsoi suppicinic-ttal dc-c isiort of thet 3. Dcl. Cctdr Ann itt-it. 7, ci . 7(0. For a brivc-fd isc ussiocu of this statutoc-, Scup remte ciott r iii tltc- same case-, 273 A.2cf 268 (1971). stc-( - Rcguii a ) I ct - tici itions - rlc-t --Lta sinrg and Rt-gui atioti Of Theic ca sc ha s a lc-ngfthy, Iiistory, (trigtinat it g as a ti action Cc tastaI Zcinc-Laticls ttcf Wati-is~icfrci . iriti [ fix D)cla wa rc-sat orrc- gcnvt-al io di-clfar c iial t tlt- cac 4. '1ic l cl( Deawitc- Coiastal M Ianage-rne-t Pro grarm wss' prpaed tlat ] (c!ha Inl Titta ii igis ill icft forcshorc, (i.r., tide-!aiids), or the- st rift otttdci tIilc- ft-cit-a! Coc astalI Zone, Mantagc-nitent Ac-t of 1972. as It-icscc-it the fti gft- anid lows-watier marks, alIottg tlit( we*ster I) fiatik arvincid-d. I ti I 'S.C. � 1451 Pi se-q. Tfte prograin gainedc federal ( if the )c-lawsart. River. The, 1IiCrtINsvtattia Raiircotc Company apptrovsal iii 1979. cfienit-cf it cdid noct rieed thc- sta te-s consenrt before- artificial!ly 5. Dcl. Ccicc Atit. lii. 7, � 70010 et seq. filling thlSic ti). 6. ld. � 70012. lit thei carl ic-st iiith Serie-s-cs of Tprt-iored dvccisicins, tretc Supetrior 7. DCAIP. sptpra nice I , at ajip. 20t. ctout t-thftc- stawics t hi! tour i-dc-n icc a mot icat fir onirna ry 8. lit. at lit. 11. � 5.A.4., 1i. 1. judcgmntc't filt-cl hy tlt(-c' dfendant railroad. 228 A.2df 587 (Del. 9. Tthis lass ifica tic ii is uscd fortt oti s-enfi-ttc anti ct nsist erie, withI Sitti-i- i. .I. 1967). ciatfir atli It'lis ill this series.Itht-scart-star tiorv S( ht-Iitit rctatittg tit lit ilit- scc cttc re-pcorted dc-cisicir, thec Scipt-ricir Couri held itiat utcr aiilaiitds', cirigittals eu(-acitcf iii 1953. usc-s Iift- tirit thict airioaild itiuic fill tihc- foet-sfhcitc witfiutit itic sitices coniscri lide-tarid.% tIc Itcfc-toc landcs bt",c-t-i tielitic cik"f itcati ftigft watt-i wtc-r difi Jill woiddlc tci inuterit-i c will) riaigaticot, fishing or airc nic-tee Iciw warci - Dcl. (Ccicl- Aitt. tit. 7, � 61(1 1(71. Itt Dcli- impot-iiiviteit oif thec- user. 237 A.2cd 579 (Ducl. Supic-. Ct. 1967). warc-, oticw-sc-i , lilc woidcfIce-.s/icrc- is ctftc'i usc-cl tc it-Ifti ic IttIh therfiicf icttitttcc Sujet-tiot Cetur tl- scit,( IS1.It Wascfi- Itld ( I tideclandts. thaI t tic itftc- hi at tit Icf-o dmcnitsr a wdcI Ithat ah ii-watt-i IIttaI k ScitI sc-% JULY 1985 13 indtlmolt' whli~tlvill.iti ' la lti surety Icstlting iln a moe ater- daictis" stifra. %%al I bom Ida Its lhui t II v (ii IIit' lire arlid (2) I illa t II raiiIIoat d 62. State,' rex t, But klrn Nte. Pe ?'ue V i~'aPIIa N1/i i 11-1,,o. '_'6 .2d at m4 n" t Ilie Ilie11(lil eiit ,hr for hasin~lg filled fin tie tidetlanids [flat. lt l~ lei liiw-tsriii lit k S ',!i~~ it )o, the eakrIicr Sill vui's .21 .2d Ii') i'lliltip,, s. t,,t, "k ,e. i)"I"'t, N .\at /, . l? ,_/ I it1 .\',Iul2 8111 D~t' Sopirl-. (It. 1)168). 6 1. I119 A.2d at256. hI Dli'Itawaic Stipyeltit' Court ', 196!9 tlv'i isiori and 1971 sup- li5. blld pIillt'itiatil det isioll i. r te ullnon' of whil:h areset foihrl in the first, 66. I)AIP'. iiuI n lot ,' l.i pit. 1I. � 7" "21.. 1) 1. liii,' (ii this Tili~olttt, follow~ed thtese' three reporttd trial twirl (67. ble.at � 5.A.2., p). IX. (let isiolts. [IiI its origintal oluitiont, tile Suiprente Court hflud that, 638. fibid. titiyer Delaware law,.1 a ipar tan owner (e.g. ant ownel of land (69. Id. at � ').A.2.. pi. 9. alrong diet Delkisti Riker. a tidal waterway) holds title water- 701. lb il. wa.Ii d toIIich lots - Na iti itiarIk. itf lan tht a-, a co'nsecitpviiette, the Slit e 7 1 Sta le tx reTV. 11 i, k N- k s P'llOo PiNI1 aul le 11. R. Co. o Nipa 'i,2t i7 . 2i I i S ;iiwt)% elefss Ill piilojit I iItie ow,~ner's filII ing (if thI e Co, cshojre. 267 1:55, 27) .A.2d 268 (supp. op .(I. iot ahtailt-dildisi 11ion 10l these A.2d 135, I5:9- Ilit). I he SUI)IVIItuit Court's SUPpleiNtien l opintiont d tt isiiiosandiil the fit,%ivios 1owivr(okti I opinions it] tlilu saiI it( 'It'. jvjc( It.l [li' 'tilecs Iloiiiiti l to peirmlit core drtillings iln an effort to St.. ' Fidclaitd", inkaidet [lIci to lan1ds Witlijia[ fill (oI'stail delIiel isil l W S;I NI I li tlttI Lid~tltay 1` 01 o ation. 273 A .2d 268, 27,0. Zone,' .oipra. Fl;ra fil[ei therist It'iosll iiili hc otutdarvaspettsof this lengthv 72. Hiii Couii tl -l,Iii eliI, is ,it' )I thet ea liei- Pe'l'otmvi retii~ Rodii litiigationl, See l idclitid stibiitetgt'd Land Botandars '' under moaddle ihiolts. lust c.\Iilatll, this lollg-ethI~lbsi,,~d Dlielost'..IIc Iletet~~ ~~~ Ynta o o idal Btl~iii dalics", winra. See State ex rvi. lith k ion I. Il'ormilvm ii' futaH . Co., Niiprfi. 228s 11 .1,1aei ri ' el. Bu11 Jtsoll I. I'v irti.sia m V R)11( . H. Co., suprat267 A. 2d1at A. 2d at 596'(6011. 15 7. 73. Set' 'Re-guit L or N Fut IIi tilt Ih III,' inolit N ea IIg I, iItIlI RugtIIit'Il wiiion if 12. B le kel lI PtA. 5 lDt -. (I I[II Iar. 1 3251~1851I1I Stir e v. Rebid Del1. CoilstalI Zul n tI Id IIit I S.1Il Witteis'N i lift (I. (IlIl, in IS I ( lH5 1);: iarial -'- I to It lig suorih CJo. '. p'ast ha 1i!.- 7 71. Del. Coilic Annitit. 2:1. � 151 1. Del. (:II lii 1i182) (-Wlatever tire couninon law tif England 75. D)el. Coude Aflln. lit. 7. � ti1t2iia. Ihet stnatlots plitl,(. Niipiloorg'-d ilti~it It~ bs een. iii is now, wllates-er the lawof oilier state's Ii'a% tidelatilt s (, ittluii'iig: gvntia'~ll~ , tidtllatiid, ili' dcliletl ats [tllo', hti on thits 'nijeic t. I feel liitird to recognize as tru~e . .. the lawt% Ittitles Iv itg ietwtcit the linc', of IlttI hirl and [ilegan lot w~ltivi dc( iltl(-[h isllir ownI law i iiris.iL ripiarian piroplritotirorow'teriif and subluttirguil lImids inludciiilu i', tli-. Itlilits Mlig tsitt'twitl' laitd frontitnig tIJpoi a hlas galule river holds to thle low water f rom[it-tth ]teati Iokiw'-kihrl itit'. Petlihips t ic tvoid "Ind"l was mark ,) illathertcittls oriiftid hcits i'n tlii id, 'tlutiiergt aind 13. N ew Jerse'.' %. I),'iwoi're', 291 U'S. 361. 375 1 193-1)...''tidcklatll.'' II. Matint ;. Waiddell, It U'S. 16 Pet. 367, 108(18-12); Phillip~ss. 76. Idi. � 6ll02(di. Slate ex rt'/. Dep't of N\al. Rie,%, 3:10 A.2d 136, Ill1 (1974)). 77. WAI:P, mupru note 1, a Ilit. 11, �5 a. I.. I). -15. 67 Stat. 29,tI itlif et at. 13 C.S.C. � 1301 el seq. 78. DOl. Code Ann. tit. 7. iI. 701. 17. Foir a (tli ',us's tot (if IDila ware's rule, see ''Tidelands'' under ''Title S ee L ig isIa dvi No te', 'I .cgislat iii i- tic Dclatwart' ( astil Zotnet Il taif Withltt [li' Coiastal zote'' and .511pra [role 39. AtI,'' 21 Buiffalo I.. Re.. Xl ISI 97 1-72). 18. DCMP. .bupra note 1, Ill. IL � 5,1B. I., Isp. 5-6; see also DeL. Code T h ie stttellti', is atiimll eld , t olluiins i affili'iiid (li-liatiitiit of 1.kSilexref, 1 kot. eit.s'tj HRth.Co.,.supra 26�.dtats 158 ' h at at icridtIth all i idosiig illupail.iati 21a rt'',.atid lilti -157- 158. terisitiaiv etitpliivitg .. ,tioeiiat-',os, i N distis l'lal~tliont or 50. Stale v. IlemNnsv er'ao HR.. (Jo., supra, 228 A-2d at 601. This rear ioiit altittiali ett(Ilili il 1io istg jliptiit'tli. sirillibitig Sitpv'rior (Suit i ipinion is ottc'ii tla'earliertlev-isotus in t~m' santetower',, 1iii kliig t'ilttihuitrt'tpi iKilinga'qiipiii tiiir iii laiootis Lase [tha t liiiiitalted itt lit' Delawart' Supremne C~ourt'N 1969 [su(. II as I oili tifinities, hait~i sict-Il iii iiiii ii tii tg plants. lia',ii deta sioti reported atl 267 A.2d -155 atid idis(ussed lin the text infras (llulosii piilp-pilpt-r alilil', and i litrititi il p1laiii' Srit Ii its pt at(1 oliipttls itig ilitte 10. l uivinat .i oiiplexe',. lDel. (:.)tk- Aiiti fiti 7, � 70011(t. .'I . Borax. Lid. v-. C(:ilx' of os trtgeters, 296 UTS. CO, 22 (1935). 80. Id. � 70011. Atiiirlti'r prix isitit itt tlii (i lilstil eutni' Ait t ',it~ii' ill 572.Stalteev ri-I. tIe kson v. Inisj'uaRHR. (S.,,stpra, 273 A-.2d at p l t: "I 1ia'. N indusi'try lisi' Nif anly kinit hut ill opertriton iii Jilliti' 2619 tt.2; .Strti' . Peuptiovleania fI?. uv.. .supra. 228 A.2d at 60I. 28. 1971, itt' ptoltibiliid ill lic( ,ia'tail litean .iito iii ier ~ iiaN lie 1,1i1 use ofl [his' iinttsual Ilegth of litte appfears to have hi.en issued ita'tletle. Ittitil Iddiiin, o[iisiie gisia Tlquid, hrI i ii huk ditic ittI It th lait is ill liu', partitillaar caSt', atd it is; untknown't produ t Ir iti'fti lit<imv hu' 6wi, haic tisit inlit'itiiiut iiu 8 what die Illamr Sitrti (i ini ight holtd to fir' the apprtlop l971, ut'liv uilibilciii ill lilt' tiiastill lone, andiitl tiii ite[mi Iiiio let latcentltletlud untitI oilier i IBIII tttlIttiLV'. issued tii'ietair.'' 1,1. � 71013 iSitlip. l981)I 53. See, e.Lg., .Slate ex ret. Islet ini v. P'eklysvti'alia HR.I? Co., .supra. 8l. Itt. � 7001)-. 27:3 A-ld at 2(59-27(1: State ev rei. Bt lason v. Peuitisvtt'ania ?RH. 82. Id. 55 70(1)I-7i(0`7. Cei.,.stipra. 2-11 A.2tl at 81 titi. 82,. 83. Del. Codtie Anti. tit 7, i [I. (8. 5-I. 2_7:1 A .2d lla 270 (1 lierittint, 1.. dlissentmting. F-or this assertion, lie S -I. lId. � 6801 tSululp. 198 It. lited thir s piprt'iie Comiti 'N (earlier dle( isioti itt whic-h that cousrt 85. Id. 5568(1 I,602(IStipli. l98-l. - leteiiii'i 5 illort..ti wroii.' '. . I lii'. frial Coutrt (lid litt slati' that thle sltiftitig presetill atid ii'patir daiiui,ii', from tr ilioti Mlial I ,xiretiu to pti- boilttdary pIill( iple is tiit upptrib tle bc itt a Mlt'awart' c ase: intlved. i1,40elV tJu',ted be-oi ut', tylvietit'i. all die iiidgiiietti ol ihe Gov .ir- ithe l'it (SitCmIt stateil ihat ttti',ti low w~ater aituak 'is a "sthtiting' iiir ,,i (inlatigriuu I ittldtiti fel iloist ittitttg .11 turitoigil % Itilc-it uIoti'.". I lit I' lrid i ( l sI taid that. Lfo [Ile reaslons, exists h. . . 1I 80I likipp. 1918-I) Jeiiillihas', ,iioltll. (t .talcIIIN rcl. folIh ill~ . ' itspliavti-.ot . lit hln ho., a r ipi. -Imlil iple 81 ai Swhli, iiuiu.luin. lii rit.it his toi II. oiiit1.at~l. 8:1.1 lflt'ipreit itie (itr aIillfile dc[ lit' atrial iiittts( ''C hitiig (: titl 7. ahin lta' 1)t'lian%"wat'Buittlr(% lilal~u iti' , Rst il tpit iliitiuulaIilts 5.7 5 CI, St muIpba tie I, t pI ?...i er? I VIt a 5 ie 5.A.2 pp . ,I iI 7 )r 11.V2. I ~ tit I W;IIIII)III t -isl ,'rsIN, :I'it' , , It t' Is I, 1)fit II( I I 11'ia It l'e) O'IatI eIu)I If f.'.'t c I I it. I I CI I ISiIIt ihe l9. i lt. 18-19 I. 88 '2l7;t i1iII15.Iit i . I 5 1031 .IA ,iS1IIIIiIII(IiiIL.Iit f .I1 JIgiIIIIIIcI. .73 7. Id. � 6803 (Supp. 1981).~~~90. d. 5 th :103pa ea iil(Ih awilowori. III1).% itvlf;eb s Iom( 5. %paltl ,ilIi pA2,p.11417 tHoE ANDi wBe~.woeCadt to eo is""'lolt2fEAC The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XXI: The Mississippi Approach BY PETER H1.EV GRABEIN Attorney (It Law San FrUanciSfco, Ca(lif(di a) A t1.-lt A 2tGI.MI.LE lN(; manmade beach was B. Tidelands built in the 19.50s to protect a seawall, with the Fe*deral Government's financial assistance, the Upon admission to the Union in 1817, Mississippi was Mississippi Supreme Court held that. the adjoining pri- vested with title to tidelands within its borders under vate landowners were entitled to the sandy strip as an the equal-footing doctrine.:' This title has been recog- artificial accretion to their property.' nized by the state's Supreme Court in a line of decisions But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dis- dating back to 1857.m" agreed. In 1969 the federal tribunal ruled that the state The question of whether the state c an legally convey court's holding violated the Mississippi Constitution lands beneath tidal waters to private parties has caused and that the beach must be open to the general public.2 the court some difficulty, however. The court's response While the legal dispute over the manmade beach was to this question varied in three cases involving Deer unusual, it illustrates the c(ompeting public and private Island, a small island in Mississippi Sound near Biloxi, interests along t.he Magnolia State's 369-mile tidal an(d the adjacent tide-flowed mudflats." The island shlloreline.: The 198() Mississippi Coastal Program is an long had been looked upon as a convenient area for attempt to reconcile these interests and to balance the expansion of Biloxi, a densely populated city development with environmental concerns.4 loc'ated on a peninsula bordered on three sides by the sound and Biloxi Bay. TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE In the 1920s developers who had purchased tidelands adjoining Deer Island from the state planned to dredge Three counties comprise Mississippi's coastal zone and fill these lands, creating an artificial island as a site under state law.' The zone extends to the outer limits for hotels and residences. The Mississippi Supreme of the U.S. territorial sea, encompassing coastal waters Court invalidated the state's tideland patents in Money and barrier islands." Legally, the zone's lands may be v. W'odl12 in 1928, citing Article 4, Section 81 of the divided into uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.' state Constitution of 1890. That provision prohibits legislative authorization of "the permanent obstruction A. Uplands of any of the navigable waters." The court said the provision had been designed to prevent the conveyance Most uplands along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico of lands under such waters "to private owners for pri- and Mississippi Sound are privately owned; however, vate purposes."lt3 three barrier islands are within the Gulf Islands Two other state constitutional provisions were relied National Seashore.8 upon by the court. in 1959 in holding another Deer Island development project void in Giles v. City of Bilori. 14 A city commission had contracted with a corporation, owner of 90 percent of the island, under This is the twenty-first in a series of articles presenting a a special statute. The contract contemplated a 99-year capsule version of thei contemporary law of the coast for non- lease from the commission to the corporation of attorneys. The article briefly sumlniarizes certain aspects of the shallow tidelands around the island that were to be conlstitutional, statutory and case law of the Stale of Mississippi reclaimed by the commission. The court held the concerning the coastal zone. Space limitations precludie an in- special statute violated the constitutional requirement depth analysis of many of these topics or any discussion of related matters. The views expressed in this ant the other articles in th tat only general laws could authorize the granting of scries do not necessarily reflect those of the author's former state lands to any person or corporation.'' In addition, employer, thet (Office of the Attorney ;eneral, State of California, the court ruled the contract between the commission or any other age''y of the State of California. (:' 198f hy Peter H.F and the corporation violated the constitutional provi- iral r T1heIt aut or alsoi asserts clpyrighlt proit ectionl for the first sitl prohllilbitilng municil)al loans of credit to private 210 arlicl(hs in the series. cororat.ions..1 JANUARY 1986 3 in I ~)60, a year followiiig" t I i (~;is de'iisiori, thoi ILegi-s- 'Theu state Suiporeme (mIrt doeis lii it irjppar to life('. latuire entacted a general laiw providling for I ihe dv~lop('1- p reciselIy Ilei'liiid I he I pl31:uul. I itlelariull liorirrldrv. ment of offshore isla,1ds it, Mis-sis-siPpi Sond1(.7 1,1irs ailthmiigh som inn oiirrt decisionis llai..( reh'rred lto 111VI law authorizes, a city's park c'ommlissionii to l('.s(' or sell "Invanii high t ie~A si udlett legal ci mmenet sutggests to p~rivaLte persons reclhuinied sudrinirgedl lands- when it thaut Nl.issippi 'si olridrrilary is liased iii t he tidal ilZitiiiir linds suchi pripl)rty is mmeiuressilry for inirk, r4'tr('a- (if weaii high walter ~Ls (lerti'iflildi () er an 18.1- Near tional 4)r other pubhlic purpo ses. i(ull vpoch.7, The Bilouxi Park Commuisshion, owner of part oil Deer Islanol, hakd been granted Some afijacvnrt tidelands by B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the the state. I 'rider this new statutory sclierne, the (-()in- Location of the Shoreline moissionl plainiWd to acqtu~ire thre rest of1 tire island and iaddlit io nal sturrouiudiing nuiltlats. Some o f the mrrdflats IrUnder M ississippfi law, private littiiral owrirs are were to he tilled to expandl the (li, land area as part of entitled (1o gradlual, n1atural arccret ions to their urplaurd ain overall develioipment p~rojiect, with fiffleuI-in lots tole pr~operty.:` But they may hiot i'xtemll their ownership) Sold( to private parties. 1Under tile planl, about half of by artificially reclaiminig thre ad~joifhing state-iiwniied the expanded island wvas tou he (devotedl to lprivate res,.i- tidlelands.;" dential, coimmercial and resort development."' What are the rights of private uplandl oiwners when In the 1967 Trea fity decision," the M1ississippi artificial add~itionrs tin Iheir p)rop)erty result friunt the acts Suprenre Court upheld Biloxi's project. The ca~se means of governmental (entities? T[his question arose whene that, Under certain circumnstances, 1)rivate parties can a 2ti-mile-long mantmade beach was built along the obltain title to tilled-in tidleland~s. The court stated that Harrison County coast. Because state anul federal Article 4, Section 81 of tire state Constitution "has noth- courts responded to the question dlifferenitly in two ing to do with the alienation of mudl flats and waters separate lawsuits, there is some1 uncertainty ont not suitable for navigation in fact, or the sale of sub- the Point. merged lands."`2 While this statement appears to be The county had co)nstructedl a seawall in the 920)s inconsistent with the language in the Money case about to protect a federal highway and coastal property The Section 8l of the Constitution. the court simply said 1924 state law linder which the seawall was built also that language was unnecessary to the earlier decision. authorized the county to "erect aind maintain . .. [a) The "over-all purporses of the proposed (levelopment sloping beach" for protective p)urposes. Later, the sand of Deer Island" woulul promote navigation, fishing south of the seawall was washed away and the wall and other pulblic purposes, the (court (leclared in the itself was severely undermined by a 1947 hurricane. D-ea ting decision.2' "If the totality of the (levelopment Since the county still owed $900,000) on the original promotes the public interest in general, the incidental seawall project, federal financial assistance was private ownership of individual lots uloes not negative sought. In the early 1950s the I nited States contributed the comprehensive pu~blic pu~rpose.,"22 one-third of the cost of building an artificial beach to [)espite tile court's approval of the ;ambitious Deer protect the seawall and highwVay.12 Island ulevelopment p~roposal in 19157, the island still is In Harri~son ('()atq! v. Ga ice, a 1962 decision involv- generally unimproved.2: The 1980 Mississippi Coastal ing a small stretch of this manmiade beach, the Missis- Program document dlesignlates the island as a special sippi Supreme Court hield "tliat where the owner of the management area anul cites its "eniormous potential for upland had no part in (creating the artificial addition or public recreation, research and educWation,`2' addition, such owner acquires title in fee to such additional land."~l The court saidl that the "essential C. Submerged Lands feature" of upland owners' littoral rights "is direct and exclusive access to the waters adjoining the uplands."14 Under the federal Submerged Lsands, Act of 1952,2 Meanwhile, a federal suit hadberuh ~ h Mississippi has dominion landl control of submerged United States against Harrison County concerning tim lands within a :3-geographical-mile strip of its coast. entire strip of manimade beach. The Federal Govern- The U.S. Supreme Court has rle~jctedl the state's claim ment Sought to enforce its 1951 contract with the to the area beyond the :3-mile-limit. 2 co unty under which the c'ounty, in exchange for federal financial assistance, had agreed to a-ssure pe(rpetual DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES public use- of the beach. The United States alleged that local peace officers had dliscriminatedl against menr- A. Upland/Tideland Boundary hers of the lpublic uising the beach.1' After the lower federal court had dismissed the In common with most coa~stal states, Mississippi sutlithe U LS. Court of Appeals for thre Fifth ('ircuit utilizes the high-water line as thel legal boundary re'versedl. In its 1.9ti decision in I `U it'i *Slatvs v.' between privately owned littoral property airu Harrison C oanvtej,'' the Fifth C ircuit rutled thaut uinder sovereign tide-flowed lands.2,7 a 1948 state law, a 1950) county Board of Supe'rvisors' 4 SHORE AND BEACH resolutionii and the 19151 contract between the county lic trust47 and thait "tie incidental private ownership all1d tite Un'iitedl States, the counity Was oltligated to of parties of the dlevelopmenlt is not inconsistent with mfainitain fthe art ificialhl createdi beachl as a public the public trust in submnerged lands."45 bvthicacl Tite federal tribunal r ivected the arguiient Subsequent ly, flthe court seerned Io take a less flexible that the count 'Ns contractul uiobl igatio Shlould11( not 1W' view of tIhc public trust doctrine. In the 1972 In terua- (cnit rcedl Iecauise of thle M ississippii Suipreme (Couri 's lnist I'uper Compan!1 case, 491htle court examined the I 962 (;an(-( decisioit.;' paper companys claim that it owned marshy lands T'he Fifth Circuit ('()tirt of Appeals stated: known as Low~%ry lslan(1 under state patents issued in 1895, 1897 and 1917. The court said that upion Missis- - -falt( obii~ois (4l(it Ifdw th ie decii i(i111 Siaadsi stteood is 181 7 eareahd entilad this leach, freve of chargu, to the( adjioioing Iaridoiiwers. lspis tlho n11 h rahdbe ivad theaphicitiuiofIhi ((ititi~j lw do'riui'of rtficalsultject to tite publhic trust. While conceding that, as a aicret lion tlie( pri vate landlow iw rs were (]-oiae t .t - result of nat ural accret ioni, t It(e lai ds iii dispute had do nees if land whi iih otIIopWSi0est h iiiral IW10iehigd ti i t li SWIVi emergedl a I ove mean h igh f ide, be fore issuance of the wthieu lt li inipirovenielits liegan. NV( are of Ihli view thiat state's pat ents,, the court said such lands could riot lie 11inder ill hefacts of lhis (. ease this cannlot heI squareId with conveyed for private benefit because they remained Section 95 of lthe Mississippi Conistituitioni of' IWW1...1ITedcso a ensapyciiie "vassunie that this prolvisioin was riot called to the( aten- trust lands.'tTedcso a ensapyciiie lion of IIIe Stiprenti Court of' Wisissippi. as it is not dis- b-y legal commentators because its application could (Ussild in tilt opinion. ... jeopardize the rights of many long-time lirivate owners Th-omonih law doctrine oif artificial accretiiin mustoforelti-lwdlndT yield to the command oif thei Mississippi Constitution as to In addition to the case law, Mississippi has a putulic I he dipsli it ii n of stat i owned lands."4 trust statute, providing in part: Although disapproving of the Ga ice dlecision, and ".. AI bieds and hottoms of rivecrs, streamns, havous, lakes, emlphasizing that it did not bind the United States, havs. sonuuds and frittet btordering onl or connlectinig with thte which had niot been a party to that suit, the Fith Circuit G ;ulf of Mexico or Mississippi Sound . .shall he, (ontintie. did concede that the Mississippi Supreme Court has and remain the( property of liii State (if MississippIi, toi hi 'primnary jurisdiction itt the settlement of disputed land held in trust for the people)1 thereof until title thereto shall titles' within the state.4t It also declared that public lelglydvse use of the artificially built beach "cannot unreasonably PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS interfere with the littoral rights of the adjoining landowners," including "the enjo~yment .. of access to As a result of the previously discussed decision of the water.'4- ~~~~~~~~~the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United Despite the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision States v. Harrison Connty,53 public access to that in United States v. Harrison C2ounty, the Mississippi county's 26-mile-long manmade beaclt is assured. Sulreme Court subsequently' did not refer to that case Mississippi's Supreme Court does not appear to have when again addressing the issue of artificial accretions. specifically addressed questions concerning public lnstea(I, in a suit involving title to property created access to tidal waters. Its public trust doctrine rulings between an island in a bayou and the adjoining uplands , except perhaps for the 1967 Th-entIing case "4 - suggest the court reiterated the Gn ice rule that "when artificial that the court might be persuaded to favor public accretions are cast upon the land of the landowner by access over private rights under certain circumstances either the Corps of Engineers or some stranger without if the competing interests could not be reconciled. the intervention of the uIpland owner such artificial Shorefront access is discussed in the Mississippi accretion inures toi the title of the upland owner.'4t osa rga ocmn.I tts MISSISSIPPI'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE '. .. While shore fiont access is typically thought of as beachi access, the coiastal program expresses a much wider con- The pttblic trust doctrine, under which the puitlic's- cern. The availablihty tif heaches is a relatively minor prihi- rights of navigation an(] fishing lent (in tdlhaer aepo mont(-coast. Thel( major shorefront access coincerris on right of avigaion ti ishin in idalwater arepro-thii( coast are access to waler for recreational huating, tected, is w('ll establishedl in Mississippi. The concept access fur fishiiig. [;ltidl access for passive visual enjoymnitt has been referred to in a number of cases involving of traii waterfront. public and private rights in tidelands. 44 Even in tht(, 1967 Trenting dIecisionl,4:, upholding the In the( coastal program. four beaches and D~eer Island D~eer Island development hiroPosal that contemplated are designated for special management as shorefront. tlte sale of filled-ill tide(lands to private' parties, the access areas. f Mississippi Supreme' Court focused on the public trust. It emphbasizedl that the( proposal would "promote nay0- PRIVATE LITITORAL RIGHTS gation and fishitig, and . .. give some protection to tlte, Blilo xi lport.''' TIte- court stated that "the development Private upland owne'rs' littoral rights are spelled out as authorized by the Statutes is consistent with thie p~ub- in court decisions andl statutory law in Mississippi. JANUARY 1986 5 In the 1962' (licre (Ca.i;t','7 involving title to a: artisf- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS cially created beach - tlthe holling in which is question- able in light of a later federal (decision5' - the state The author is grateful to Mack Cameron, spcial Supreme Court said: "littoral rights inclule the rights assistant attorney ge(neral, antu Larry Lewis, staff scilln- of navigation, boating, swimming an(l fishing; andl all tist, Blutreau of Marine Rl{sources, I)epartnient of these rights depend upon actcess to the water from thile Wil(life ('Olnservatioinl, State of Mississippli, ltir l)rovidl- littoral owners' lantl."'! ing some of the source material cited in this article. Later, in the 1967 D7eutingq decision,'" the Mississippi Supreme Court cited with approval a F'lorida case in REFERENCES which "an unobstructed view, [and] ingress andl( egress over the foreshore from and to the water" were referred 1. Ha-isr ('Cloty v. Gire, 214 Miss. 95, 1 So.2d 83S ( 1)162 For a brief dliscussirnl oIf Ithis case. see "Legal Effe ct of l'hvsical to as littoral rights."' ()n the other hand, in a suit to (';l in tht Lccation of tIhe Slloreliote under "Deteromyina- enjoin construction of a small craft harbor, the court tion of Tidal Illoullries." ilVfra. was not persuaded by a restaurant owners' argument 2. United Stttes v. IIarrison ('tut, :3)9 F.2d -85 (5th ('ir. !68). that their littoral rights inclutled "the view of the sea liscussed in same portion of article. and natural breezes from the sea."';2 3. ississippi cristal I'rqran fl Fiend Environmentat Impact Statement VII-7 ( 1!)80) [hereinafter cited as M 'P1. A Mississippi statute provides that upland owners 4 I at 1-2-:3 along the Gulf of Mexico or Mississippi Sound have the 5. Miss. Code Ann. � 57-15-ti; M('P, supra note :3, at I1-t, IX-7-8. "sole right of planting and gathering oysters and erect- Ii. Under federal law, howeve*r, the islands within the G(;ulf Islands ing bathhouses and other structures in front of' their National Seashore are exchluded from the state's coastal zone land to specified distances. 'ii for purposes of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. � 115:3(a); M('P. supra note :3, at IX-8-9. 7. This classification is used for convenience and consistency LEASING AND REGULATION OF with other articles in this series. However. the term silbmertled COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS lands is sometimes usedl in Mississippi law to mean what this series refers to as tidelands, i.e., lands between the lines of A. Leasing mean high water and mean low water. See, eg.. the (oastal Wetlands Protection Law, Miss. Code Ann. � 49-29-5(a) (Supp. 1984) ("submerged water-bottoms below the watermark of The Mississippi Commission of Natural Resources is ordinary high tide"). authorized to lease state-owned tide and submerged 8. The multistate national seashore includes Ship, Horn and Petit lands for extraction of oil, gas and other minerals. The Bois Islands in Mississippi. See saipra note 6. commission's authority is administered by the Bureau 9. For a brief discussion of the equal-footing doctrine, see Shore and Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4, October 1980, pp. 15-16. of Geology and Energy Resources of the Department 10. Martin v. O'Brien, :34 Miss. 21(1857). of Natural Resources."4 11. Treuting v. Bridge & Park Clrn' ' of City of Bitoxi, I!),1 So.2d 627 (Miss. 1!)67); Giles v. City rtf Biloxi, 2:37 Miss. 65, 112 B. Regulatory Functions So.2d 815 (1)159); Money v. Wood, 152 Miss. 17. 118 So. :357 (1928). Mississippi's Coastal Wetlands Protection Law' 'was 1 2. 152 Mis9, 17 .18 So. :35. 13. Id. at 29, 118 So. at 359. enacted in 1973. The law declares the state's public 14. 237 Miss. 65, 112 So.2d 815. policy to be "the preservation of the natural state of 15. Miss. Const. of 18910, art. 4, � 90. the coastal wetlands ..., except where a specific alter- 16. Id. art. 7, � 183. ation of specific coastal wetlands would serve a higher 17. 1960 Miss. Laws ch. 4:34, as amended; codified at Miss. Code ~,;4public interetUnr this law, permits are gener- Ann. �� 5974-01 el seq. public interest Under this law, permits are gene- 18. Treuting v. Bridge & Park Cor'n of Bilo.ri, supra, 199 So.2d ally required for enumerated activities in the coastal at 631. wetlands, including dredging, filling and the erection of 19. 199 So.2d 637. certain structures."7 The Bureau of Marine Resources 20. Id. at 6;32. of the state Department of Wildlife Conservation 21. Id. at 634. This part of the Treuting decision, dealing with the public trust doctrine, is discussed further under "Mississippi's administers the regulatory scheme.'" Public Trust Doctrine," inrta. The Wetlands Law is a key component of the Missis- 22. Id. at 63:3. sippi Coastal Program, which was approved by the Fed- 2:3. Telephone conversation on Sept. 6t, 1985, with Mack (Cameron, eral Government in 1980. In addition to the Bureau of special assistant attorney general, State of Mississippi. Marine Resources, the coasital program is administered 24. MCP, supra note :3, at VI-1:3. The document discusses the pre- liminary Deer Island Management Plan, which calls for recre- by two bureaus in the Department of Natural Resources ational day use and overnight use as well as rtesearch and - the Bureau of Pollution Control and the Bureau of archeological zones. Id. at VI- 13-14. Land and Water Resources - and the Department of 25. 67 Stat. 21); codified at 4:3 U.S.C. � 1:3111 et seq. Archives and History."'l 6 SHORE AND BEACH 261. 1/ailed Stairs v. Louisiana, 363i U1.S. 1, 79-82 (1960). A legal 45. 199 So.2d (327. * ~~~~~~writer has argued that application (If the principles of inter- 46. Id. at 6314. flat 6 ual law would result ilk the expansion of Mississippi's 47. Id at 633l. territorial sea. Wolfe, Inctirnational Law, and tfe, Reqiirnc 48. Id. at 634. o~f thr Svit in Mississippi's Coastal Zone, 2 Miss. C.L. Rev. 49). Int' Paper Co. %,. Miss. S'tate- Hwy. IM-10, 271 No.2d 3905 (Miss. 23tt ( ltt1l 1972), re'rl. dr'oed, 414 U.S. 827 (1973). 27. ,S'tot, cx rcl. Rlitc v. Stewart. 184 Mis.% 202, 184 So. 44 (1,938). 5 0. "While it is true that lthe character of the- land . .. has changed sugg, croc oerrilfOhd, 18:5 So. 247, (1939): Mlartin v. O'Brie-n, by a(ccretionc from the time it vested in the~ State until the time supro, 34 Miss. 21. of the( 11884] legislative enactment and that perhaps its 28. See', e.g., Moijre Kuiijis, 207 '-o.2d1 6014, 6tt7 (Miss. 1967); paramount use for navigational purposes has diminished, Ilarr'istit (coount!l Gu ice, supra, 244 Miss'. 95, 106, 109, 1401 neverthc'less if is our opinion that these changing characteris- So.2d 838, 842, 849. For regulatory purposes, the Coastal Wet- ti('s of flte land did not displace the trust imposed upon tile land-, Protectilon Law refers lo 'the watermark, of ordinary State for the pcublic." Id. a( 399. high tide." Miss. Code Anni. � 49-27-3 (Supp. 19184). 5]1. ('omneinvt, The Mississippi Public T'rust Doctrine: Publir and 29. Recentl Decisionus, 44 Miss. LJ. 322, 324 n.8 (197:3). Thle student, J'rieotfc lights in the Coastal Zone, 46 Miss. L.i. 84. 98-100. however, did not cite any Mississippi case law as authority for 11 1-1 14 (1975); Recent Dtecisioncs, suprds. 44 Miss. LJ. 322,327. his statement and incorrectly stated that the 18.6-year tidal 52. Miss. ('ode Anti. � 49)-15-5. cycle is thec "English common law standard." It actually is tile 531. 414 F".2d 784. For a brief discussion of this case anid the factual American federal rule enunciated in Bot-raa Ltd. v. City tf Los context within which it was decided, see 'Legal Effect of Angeles, 266 U.S. 10 (1935). For a brief discussion of the Physical Changes in thle Location of the Shoreline" under English rule and Boraa-, see Shore and Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4, "lDetermination of Tidal Boundaries,' supra. October 198(1, pi). 17-18. 54. 199 So.2d 627. The court subsequently attempted to limit the 30t. Hlarrison County v. Guice, supra, 244 Miss. at 107, 140 So.2d Treating case: "We observe that this case is an exception to at 842. the general rule which prohibits the sale by a trustee to anyone 31. Id. at 107, 140 So.2d at 842; Giles v. City of Biloxi, supra, 237 for a private purpose. The case was restricted in its terms to Miss. 65, 112 So.2d 815. the circumstances there existing which arose from special '32. This factual background is derived from Hamrsov County v. legislation directed to a particular area.' Int' Paper Co. v. (;uir-r- supru, 244 Miss. 95, 140 So.2d 838, and United States Miss. State Hwy. Dep't, sapra, 271 So.2d at 399. v. Harrison County, supra, 3MM F.2d 48-5. There are discrepan- 55. MCP, supra note 3, at VI-9. cues in some of the facts set forth in the two decisions. 56i. Id. at VI-1O. 3:1. 244 Miss, at 1(17,14(1 So.2d at 842. Other Mississippi causes hold- 5 7. Harrison County v. Guice, supra, 244 Miss. 915, 142 So.2d 838, ing that private owners ar(' entitled to accretions, whether discussed under 'Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the natural or manmrade, are Moore .,. Kuljis, supra, 207 So.2d Location of the Shoreline' under 'Determination of Tidal 604; Skrnietta v. Moore, 227 Miss. 1,99, 86 So.2d 46) (1956); and Boundaries,' supra. Sknrunta v. Moore, 2(12 Miss. 585, 30t So.2d 5:3 (1947). 58. United Slates v. Harrison County, supra, 414 F.2d 784, dis- 34. 244 Miss. at 107, 140 So.2d at 842. cussed in same portion of article. 35. 399 F.2d 485. "Beginning in 1953, and continuing at least until 59. 244 Miss. at 107, 140 So.2d at 842. 1963, there were incidents in which memnhers of the general 6 0. Treuting v. Bridge & Park Corn ' of C.ity of Bilori, supra, public were forcibly denied the use and enjoyment of the 199) So.2d 627. beacht, . . .' Id. at 490. The lower federal ('curt decision indi- 61. Id. at 63:3. The cited case is Hayes v. Bow-man, 91 So.2d 795, cales that the suit was brought by the- United States because 799 (Fla. 1.957). peace officers, had allegedly discriminated against blacks in 62. Xidis v'. City of Gulfport, supra, 72 So.2d 153, 155. the use of the beach. United States v. Harrison County, 265 63. Miss. Code Ann. � 49-15-9. F.Supp. 76 (SID. Miss, 1967). 64. Id. �� 29-7-1, 29-7-3, 49-2-5, 49-2-7, 49.2-9 (Supp. 1984). A '36. 265 F.Supp. 76. statute, authorizes the st-ate to lease tide and submerged lands 37. 399 F.2d 48-5. tic countyr port authorities 'for the development of commercial 38. Id. at 489-492. fishing, port and related industrial facilifies,' but expressly 39. 244 Miss. 95, 14(0 So.2d 8:38. reserves tot thes state the minerals in, don or under such lands. 40. 399) F.2d at 491. The cited constitutional provision reads: Id. � 59-9-21 (Supp. 1984). 'Lands belonging to, or under the controcl of the state, shall 65. Id. � 41.-27-1 el seq. (Supp. 1984). never lIe( donated directly or indirectly toc private corporations 66C. Id. � 49-27-3 (Supp. 1984). or individuals." 67. Id. �� 49-27-5(c), 49-27-9 (Supp. 1984). Certain private parties 41. 399 F.2d at 491. arud governmental agencies are exempt from the regulatory 42. Ibid. provisions. For example, subject. to provisos, there is an 4:). H. K Porter Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Super-cisors tf Jackson County, exempt iocc for "[1 ]he exercise of riparian rights by the owner 324 So.2d 746, 7501 (Miss. 1975). Thle ('curt rc'asoned that the ccf the rip~arian rights.' Id. �49-27.7 (Supp. 1984). islcind had aris('n ocut of tic(- state-owned bed of lthe bayou anid 68. MCI', supcra not(' 3, at 11-2. then states therefcore, ownc'd thce island and was entitled to accre- 6t1. Id. at V-2-3. tiorcs tcc the island ev('n thicugh they ultimately reached the private' lit Ioral lands. 44. Sec., r-.y., Pcirks v. Simapsocn, 242 Mass. 894, 137 So.2d 1:36 (1962); Giles .,. City of Bitcf.ui, supcrc, 2317 Miss, 65, 112 Scu.2d 815; Xidis v. City of Gulfporl, 221 Miss. 7t1, 72 So.2d 153(1954); Craerg v. S'tatecHwy. Corun'n, 219 Miss. 284, 68 Scu.2d 468 (1953); Mrmecj v. Wood, supra, 152 Miss. 17, 118 So. 357. JANUARY 198667 The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XXII: TYhe Georgia Approach BY PETE IItl. F (RtABIEIt Attornc! at Law Sail Pi)-anisco, C(tlif;rni E( EM\IN(; I Nt EIN'TAINTY enlgelndere(d by a 1902 tional areas and wildlife refuges on the barrier islands.? statile, the (Georgia Supreme Court riled To the extent that marshlands may be classified as t1( years ago thal the state, instead of private uplands, considerable uncertainty still exists as to landowners, has title to the sandy beaches along its whether they are owned by the state or private parties." barrier islands.' But another perplexing legal question concerning B. Tidelands (;Georgia's coastal zone still remains unresolved: owner- ship of the vast marshlands between the islands and Georgia, one of the original states, succeeded the the mainland.2 English crown as the the owner of all previously Unlike most coastal states, Georgia is not participat- ungranted tidelands."' But, until the 1976 state Supreme ing in the federal Coastal Zone Management Act' pro- Court decision in State v. Ashmorer," it was uncertain gram. 1However, it has enacted tough regulatory mincas- whether the state had relinquished its title to tidelands ures for both the barrier islands and the marshlands.4 by virtue of a 1902 statute,"' which had apparently been ratified by the 1945 state Constitution." TITLE TO LANDS The law had been enacted immediately following WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE Johtnson v. State,'4 which reiterated Georgia's adher- ence to the common law and state ownership of the Georgia's coastal zone includes parts of six counties, tidelands. In that case, the court dismissed an indict- and extends into the Atlantic Ocean to the state's sea- ment for the misdemeanor of gathering oysters from ward jurisdictional limit.' an alleged private oyster bed. "The Johnson decision, Lands within the zone may be legally divided into by holding that the oysters were on state land [that uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.' A problem of was] therefore open to the public, apparently discour- classification exists, however, with regard to coastal aged private oyster planting,"" which the state had marshlands; although they may be classified as been seeking to encourage. uplands, some legal writers in Georgia do not distin- Presumably in response to the concern of the oyster guish between marshlands and tidelands.' industry over the Johnson case, the legislature in 1902 passed an act entitled "Boundaries of Lands on A. Uplands Tide-Waters.""' In its original form, Section 3 of the law provided: Private parties own the majority of uplands in the "... [F]or all purposes, including among others mainland portion of the coastal zone, but the Federal the exclusive right to the oysters and clams (but Government and the state administer numerous recrea- not to include other fish) therein or thereon being, the boundaries and right of owners of land ' This is the twenty-second in a series of articles presenting a adjacent to or covered in whole or in part by capsule verisol of the contemporary law of the coast for nion-at(or- navigable tidewaters ... shall extend to low water ntevs. The article hriefly summarizes certain aspects of the con- mark ... [subject to certain provisos]."'7 stitutional, statutory and case law of the State of Georgia concern- ing the coastal zone. Space limitations preclude an in-depth Because of the doubtful constitutionality of this 1902 analysis of many of these topics or any discussion of related mat- statute, a constitutional amendment was submitted to ters. Thl views expressed in this and the other articles in the and approved by the voters in 1945 which apparently series d(l not necessarily reflvct those of the author's former ratified and confirmed the act.' empilover, the. ()ffice of the Attorney General, State of California, or any othr agency of tthe Stat of (California. C. 18(i by Peter I. F (;ralcer. 'The author also asserts copyright pr(oection for the first foreshore in question,""' it "was often interpreted to 21 articles in thlis sries. grant portions of the foreshore to owners of land adja- JULY 1986 3 vent. to or cvrelin whole or part kV tidewater."2" B. Legal Effect of' Physical Changes In 197ti, ill ,strct V. Ashmore,"- a divided Georgia inl the Location of the Shoreline Supreme ('ourt iliheld tihe 11)02 act's constitutionality rc lrei i rda hut rllled t hat Sect ion :3, (luoted above, (lid not convey Private littoral ocwncrs, il rnerl beCifl('1:1"A thle statteS title to lands benreath navigable tidal waters. imperceptible( accretions to their piwcpc'rly." III oie Thre court, in aI 5-2 decis ion, held: case, beachifron t landowners, were trien to h Ie ('litit led to plnt, cltivae andto accretions that had formed as a result ot artificial ".IN jothing bitt tile right t anclitendinfluent-es before a (levelopqer soldl the lots to their harvest oyvsters and clams was granted. Such a peeesr. 'nesllnonr ia utrls grant solvedl tile problem Of the oystermen. They of property by garadual erosiiot.` liad the eXClUSive right to the oysters in the tidal waters next to their adjacent land... 122 GEORGIA'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE The.-isitmoe, decision concluded that "the state has fee simple title to the foreshore in all navigable tide- The Getirglia Supreme ('ourt 1Uas rot eX[pressly waters," ;such ats the sandy beaches on barrier islands. addressed the natulre and extent of the pcuillic trust The coUrt dlid ciot rule onI the effect of the 1902 act on doctrine, although several of its dec-isionls reler toc p)01- the rights (of owners of llroperty adjoining non-naviga- lic rights in tidal waters and thle state attorney general ble tidal waters.~' issued a position paper ill 1970 asserting that marllsh- Since the Ash more case arose in the context of a lands, whether publicly or p)rivately owned, are subJect dispute over an ocean beach on a barrier island, it did to the trust." niot deal with the question of marshland title. As one A legal writer states that the Georgria courts have irn- legal writer put it, "the issue now left to be decided is plicitly acknowledged thle public trust and argues that whether marshlands aire 'navigable' or 'non-navigable' they should explicitly adopt the doctrine.~_ fle niotes tidlewaters."-'- Georgia's appellate courts have yet to that a 1971 Cour11t of Apcpeals decision " reallirmeid thle (lecidle that (juestionl or to rile that all or some of the public 'right o~f comimon fishery in all tidal waters, marshes many be legally classified as uplands instead whether actually navigable or non-navigable.' " and of tidelands, asserts that three cases "ait least imiplied thte existence of a protected right Of recreation in the( tidelands..'.. C. Submerged Lands The previously discussed 1902 act." which wats inter- preted in State v. Ash more,`' expressly recognized cer- Georgia has dominion and control of submerged tamn public rights in tidl(landls. As presently codi(faied, lands within 3 geographical miles of its coast under the statute reserves tile public'11s "frkee tuse"' cf both the Submerged Lands Act of 19,52.21 In 1975 the U.S. navigable and non-navigable tidlewate'rs `for the pur- Supreme ('ourt reje'cted the claims of Georgia and poses of parssage anld fo r thle transportation orf. othier East ('oast states to the area beyond that firnit.27, freight.... DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS A. Upland/Tideland Boundary Unlike courts in ('alifornia," New Jh'rsc'y' and Ore- gon," the ('eorgia appellate tribunals have niot been Until the 1971i Ashmore decision,-28 some legal eager to invoke such legal concepts ats implliedI (ledica- authorities believed that ('eorgia was among the tion, the public trust and customn as at ieans to aissure minority of c'oastal states in which the low-water ptiblic access to tidal waters. line divides pirivate littoral property from publicly In a 1978 case, the Georgia Supreme ('ocirt r( 'jectedl owned lands becneath tidal waiters.-"' That decision, the state's claimn that thle public hail acqucirecl rights licwever, clearly re'estabclished the rule that in Georgia toc a b)(each atrea oin St. Sinimn's Islaid uricder lhe t lec ry the high-water mark b'miarcates the waterward bound- of CUStOmn.' TlWO Vear's later, inl ano t her deccisic ii, I r, Of Ipriv: ite prope'~~1'rtyV ad Ijacent, to navigable tidal the 'cou rt he Id t hc rm wa~s inrsufi fic ie nt cvi d~en c'c lit) Shw Waters. iiiimpliecl cdedicationi tco 11cc pulblic ccf accr(l('td l imics.' III 198S the( stati' Supreme ('c urt ad optedl thre federal The C('Urt't IOlntc'cd ouut, hcc wever, that 't lii stree'is c ft the rule (l'fraining "mmnan hirgh water ... [asi the elevation orl subdivisioin that are perpienicliciar to ntlct fcr -ior(' - cd the Itc'an lc'vel c d high water calculated Icy averaging [tidelanclS[ were aclsic extc'nd ed by ac'cretiion and Ithills the height (it Wl fthe high waters, at thaut pmlace ov-er it they reach the foreshore furnishing acces's acrc ss ti ed periodl ot' 19 years." ''I' lie court stated rthat ithe meanil disputed atr(a."' high-water mark is "dlcterinured lby projecting the tidal A 1951 casi' (teatt'cl soni'umrcrait rlr tile cjuc's- I datuml lplanei('ct the mean high water to t he poimit ofl ticii of p~ublic access becaulse of aln aruhiguocuts state- intersecticcn with the shucre."'. mlenit that cou~ldl be interpcretedc as indcicatitig thate acc'sis 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHORE AND BEACH must he pirovided a('ross a priv'atlvh owtied,'soft b~each"l lislhed by tlwv Shorte Assistance Act of' VM)79 This law are~a Ii theV state"s t idlelaticlsi flt, aS a Su~bsequentI deci- is ifltendl(( Iio reduce erosion along Georgia's harrier SionIl dllemnlist rat Id , t Iiis in t erpretat ioll islands biv requiring a permit for "am' , structure, was noti just ifii ( b ec alls( app i( a'Isii c'laim was baNsedl xli shreliilI'(' vilgi l('( rig I alt ivitv or .. aIII(1 alt erat i iti o)il his Status as a piropjerly owiter iii a dvevelolptfett onl Wvithiti the i'egiilated zolle., The act dlefines "stlitrelime Sca Islanud aid il hle co url Was )Illc required 1(o decide, engineering acltiliy` as icl(d1inig grading, arl ificial the( broa:der ISSueV of' genteral publdic access awross pri- duike coilstrudion l wl ach nlourishmllent, and the (o-() vale lands. st ruet i ni aid m ia ii t elanle o f groini s, seawal Is ai dI iIn 19S.5 theII ci ur refused to "decide, the exact natulre ,jeti ies.- (ift ll'c getteral public i's right of access to i th fores-hore lit piassinug ft(li Sho rte Assistance Act, legislatorlls r(("-- ()ii Sea Islald" Iit anlitler' suit by a Ian dowtivie againlst ognizecd thi( siguiifi("diice (II it(th "sanld-shlianig syst eiii at dlveloier."' Thle (-curt declried tol issue ait advisory of' sand( dliles, lieic~livs, salldbtars and shoals.' This opinion after- ruling that Itllver was no legal colitrov'ers'y laws program is, adminimstvrel liy the S~lore Assistance li e d('cided because the developer had in t denied Conimitt ee witlhuri tll' Ic )epatl tien of Nat ural thel (xiter~ a(ccess to (1(itlien- t~n "so ft sand Iwiaclh" or the R 'souirces." '1111 zon lit' xnhject to re'gulation)1 embraces foreshore and because "110 m('nlher of the g('i('ral pull- the( "suhniergedc shore'liiie lands" and] tite "dynamic lic who max' have been denied ac'c'css was made a parly dune fields" on thi(' barrier islands."" to the actioill.", Although iG eorgia's C oastal Management Act of'1978- was etiactec ill part to enable the state' to seek financial PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS assistance under the' federal Coast-al Zone Management Act of 19721, as arnended,"' thel statl' is not participating As mentioned( above, private' up~landl owners arc' ('rti- iII the( federal CZMA program. It is th(' (lily Atlantic tled toi accretions tol thc'ir propierty.' The landowners Coa~st state ii1it doing S(o. also enjoyi thle exclusive right to plant, cultivate' arid harv-est clams and oy-sters in the adjoining navigable ACKNOWLEDGMENTS tidal waters.'' The' authoir is grateful to Patricia T. Barmeven, senior LEASING AND REGULATION assistant attorney general, and D~uane Harris, director, OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS Coastal M-soure(s D~ivision, Decpartment oIf Natural R~esouirces, State of Georgia. for proxiding some( (If tile A. Leasing soure' mat erial cited in this article. The State Properties Commission is empowered tci REFERENCES issue ]eases for e'xplor'aticon for and removal (if "minerial resourc'es," including oil, gas, sand, sulfur arid phios- I. .Swif v. As/howwcr. 2; l~ikea 401,1 224 S.F.2d 33:4 (11176)1 ('In. phate, in lif states tideflowed lands" I~asj n g ofdcuii d. 429 UiS. 830t (1t971;). ]it I his ('asI'. whicht ink-olved1 st. phat e, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~imn tesaes tIsl-l wdlands.,.Laiug ~ S cIi s taitl' i ourthld tiitltal fitl VsI alt' has titti'l fii I ovster and clamn beds is within the jurisdiction of thie fort-stiore-i it 1115 li Iwithve Itit' licVs (if tiigtian 111( o% waler- Dep artment of Natural Resources. " of all lairigeible fd1(1 waltetrs, despilejI t' P19112 s51u1111 Itt it was rafifh't liv Iliv 19475 slitet C'onstiltutioni. For tlist'tssionis, oif fiti' B. Regulatory Functions (lIwt' sv'l "Titt-llitis unittici "T'l It'Ii Lantd, Wit hiui 111 tiCoaistal Ztcctc htrid "Il'trtitltcc f Tidail ittictai',iintr. 'The previst' gvoigratjtict 'xi('ttiii Ili 'Alticih I 45Iv Alotwn-( Sin ce 1970, co(ast al marslhI ands have [)(eenI regulated dticis ico 11) appli's is imi) knocitwit.Aordii g loi one ite(gal ailWri I. unde I l'r Ge ;corgi a C oast al Marsh Iand(s Prot ec'tionil Act.- ' Vt rghi hasti folccal (If 5)1 nui ls If ilidasiti rt' i nt' 727 mils (if' t Indler t his act, ''[11 o persoln shall remove, fill, drc'dge vji'iis actittiild istlactts andii ti0i naiits oilt itt' Iltlai~itilan. Iretlandi. ori (ra ill oii (111h 'w isc( alt c'r any marshliand(s Ii thIis5 State) Alo 11/itta SUI.s Art imlt, to$(' Sf,, icx. 2 LI.aI. '. 436. 441I ( 1941j). willun the estuarine area therof without first obtain-tlitwvv'r. anolilir tlight amlitr stater51s Ithact Georgiac hils 23.:14. with liii t II e ('St nan II') art'a therel-,of wi 1(ntfrtoti titstf id i: shrlittnIct. NoWiI.7/, a, itt/ Grrq Fbiwit 's/t,ii ic iid Steor iiig a Ipermil t fri nt th e ('oast al Marshlands IPro itect ic n r ~I1 iii c /Ti, bLi.,dislint (,'irtih/ anil /it Jodi , i/i iriq T)/ik/ C'ommnittee. ' Air'iit;. 7 Elm%' I.. 17.1 wc I (Ili7hi. "('oa-stal marshlands" are defined in til(' a('t as incllu(- 2. Thei .Ash mtrf etnclii.Stt supr t'tp'ificatll litd nott deidtitt owit'rship~ itig "any niarshllaldI or salt tmarshl in the State of Georgia tif 110' fctc'istticc otf uimotn'uiiig~ot' fidlc'wate's. "t'riv~lit' liv withiti thl ( est-taril 11 at'al o'1 ffi v staite, whether r noit 10710 iG 'itra I Ass 'ciihl d I t'gislat imt' ... plisse't I ic tCoastall ft(ii tidch wat ers reach t in' lit Ii ral areas through tlatu ral NarsIh anills Prtci t ionliii A(-I..,. Slic rfl.v itfivivt'n(iei1(rl ilt tIcistalt (11 art ificial water courses.'' '' Th law defines thn' Atotit'vy (c'iwi'cal isscue-il a pttsitiociilic''. Tlis opintionic t'liel "c's VSItIill i' areVa as `[ a Ill ti al l.N ifi fili~etICi' water's, 1 hat alIccc st all (If t'iorgilis I iviri ts wei ' wit' j fl)ti 'th l stic' i li mlarshetOS, and mInarshl anls, lying wt'ithlini a f i(I( -t' (vat i(on Abbot ti i Si tint LI fii/a'' i/dc/i 'lin dve ii/d itt Svnf till , t 'i ct i ranlgI' froill. Fi' eet above itec'an tidll lev'cl and b(elow."', o is ~IJ 27i 29is -v/ ti9t' hiitttlci Aor tsic itt' litg wrifiti Owicrti Another ext'lisive regulatory plrograml was estali- Iland tilt'.. JULY 1986 5 :3. Under t he hi leral C~oastal Zctne MIanagenient Act (if 1972, as :31. Smifth v. SlawU, 24,8 (;a. 1 54, 157, 282 S E .2i I 76, 81 (I1981) amended, I6 U.S.C. � 1451 el seq., the states were. encouraged (emiphasis bly court). This decision thus folloiws the US. toi develop afld siek Federal Govermient approval of coastal Supreme Court's holifing in B)orax, Lt1d. v. Cityj eJ L~os A ngrivs, zone nmanagement programs. 296 I TS. 10, 26-27 ( 1335). For a birie'f ii sci ission of o((C see 4. For a brief discussion of the regulatory programs, see 'Regula- ,Shore and Betich, Vol. -18, No. -1, Octolur 1980, pp. 17-18. tory FunctionS" Under "Leasing and Regulation of Coastal Zone :32. 248 Ga. at 157, 282 S. E.2d at 81. Lands and Waters," itfan. :331 State v. Ash ti a re, sup en, 236 Ga. at 414, 224 S. E.2d at( :42.T'he 5. Ga. Code Ann. �4:3-2602 (Supp. 1985; repealed 1984). The land- court said, however, that, depending on the evidence in a given ward hioundary of the zone is described by reference to two case, such accreteid land couuld he idedicated to public use or major transportation corridors, the Seaboard Coast Line Rail- he subject to) prescripitive rights. Ibidi. fIn a siubseqilitrit ;ippeal road and Interstate Highway 95, [bid. of this case, the court ruled that there was not sufficieiit evi- 6i. This classification is used for convenience and consistency with ( fence of dedication or prescription. Lights v. Satoe, 215 Ga. other articles in this series. However, the word foreshore has 390, 264 S.E.2d 8i91 (195)1). been used in Georgia cases to mean the lands referred to in this :34. Cherry v. flopkiins, 254 Ga. 2);), :128 S.E.2d 71)2 (1985). series as tidelands, i.e., lands between the lines of high and The d(lyrniaiing and dlammitng of a tidal creek through the prop- low waiter. See, e.g., 5Stote v. Ashmore, supra, 236 Ga. 4(31, 224 erty caused the beitch toi biuild upl, according to the court's S.E,2(1:3:34. decision. 7, See, eig., Smith &. Sammons, Pubilic Rights in Georqia's Tide- :35. Smith v. Brnce, 241 Ga. 1:3:1, 2-14 S.E.2d 359 (l978). [In this case, !oaids, 9 Ga.L.Rev. 79, 8(3 n.1 (1974). the court Jumped tfogether the legal effect of the jriidtnil prii- 8. Among such units are [he Cumberland Island National Seashore, cess oif erosion anil the suitliell, perceptible changes knlown its .Jekyll Island and Skidaway Island State Parks, and Wassaw and avulsion. This is inconsistent with the law elsewhere. In muist Bllackbearil Island National Wildlife Refuges. jurisdictions, legal boundaries shift with eroision but dii hut 9. In a 1970 position paper, 1970 Op. Ga. Att'y Gen. 279, Georgia's, move when the changes are avulsive. See "Shoreline Chaniges: attorney general concedes that some areas of marshland were A Legal Lexicon," Shtore and Beach, Vol. 51), No. 2,. uly 1982. p. granted into private ownership either by the king of England oir 18. the state. The position paper asserts, however, that most crown :36. For a brief discussion of the public trust diictrine, which hits grants are "hounded by the marshes," arnd (to not inclutde the its roots in ancient Roman law and evolved at English ruimmon marsh, citing Ovenier v. Green, 134 Ga. 198 (191)1). The state law, see Shore ouire Beech, Voli. -18, Nii. 4. (Wtoetihur 198t0 pp. Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits of the attorney 18-19. The attorney general's liositioin is s('t forth in 19170 Op. general's assertion in any (lecision since the 1976 Ashtmnore Ga. Atty Gen. 279. case, slipra. :37. Notesuopra note IS, 17 Ga. L,.Iev. at li84. See alsii Smith& 10. Martini v. Mildell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367. 408 (18421). Sammons, supra note 7, 9 Ga, L.Rvv. 79). Iii .Iuphosoo v. Stole. It. 2:36 Ga. 401, 2241 S.E.2d 334. supra, 114 G;a. 79)), 791-792, 403 S.E. 8(37-81f)8, the Geiirgia 12. Ga. Laws l902, p. l08; codified at Ga. Code Ann. �� 85-13(37, Supreme Court ideclared that the state adhe res to the common 8.5-1:308 (Supp. 1985). law, which presumably would include the public trust doctrine. 1:1. Ga. Const. art I, � VI, para. 1 (1945). :38. West v. Baunigartner, 124 Ga. App.:318,:325, 184 S.E.2d 21:, 219) 14. 114 (ja. 79)1, 403 S.E. 807 (1902). (1971), revi sito other grounds, 228 1 a. 671. 187 S. E.2i1 165 15. Note, A Tidelands Trust fibr Georgia, 17 Ga. L.Rev. 85-1, 851) (1972). The case arose friim the priisecution iif the, plaintiff for (1983). fishing fri m a lio at in a slough on a lirivateliy ownuedl island 16. Ga. Laws 191)2, p). 11)8: codified at Ga. Code Ann, �� 8i5-1:107, without having obitained piertmissioin. After he was acquiitted. 85.31:38 (Supp. 1985). he brought suit for malicious prosecution. 17. Ga. Laws 1902, p. 1WS, � :1. :39. Goidijear v. Ti-ist Co. Bank, 2.17 Ga. 281. 276 SE.2d :1) (�1981): 18. Ga. Const. art. I, � VI, para. 1 (1945). Lines v. Slide, so pro, 245 Ga. :191, 26.1 S.E.2d 830l; Smnithiv 19). Note, suprut note IS, 17 Ga. L.Rev. at 859. Bruce, slupra, 241 Ga. 1:13, 214 S.E.2id 553). 21). Smith & Sammimns, supra note 7, .9 Ga. L.Rev. at 11)1. 40. Note, supra note 15, 17 Gai. L.lRev. at 867. 87)). 21. 2:36 Gia. 401, 224 S.E.2d :1:1.3 For a more deafilaed discussion uif 41. Ga. Laws P19)2. Ii. 10)8; codifleci at (it,. Codle Anti. �� 85'-11307, the case, see Note, so p~ra note 15, 17 Ga. L.Rev. 851: Note, 85.1:3(18 (Stipp. 19S,5). supra note 1, 7 Env. L. 154; Note, Real Propterty-State Has 42. 236 Ga. 401, 224 S.E.2t1 :3:34. Title to Pbreshores of Geeorgia's Navigable Waiters, 27 Mercer 43. Ga. Code Anti. � 8.5-131(8(b) (Supp. 1)8-5). L.Rev. 1229 (11)76). 44. For a brief uhiscussiomn of the (California Supreme C'ourt's apph-i 22. 236 Ga. at 41:3, 221I S.E.2d at 341. cation of the theory of implied idedicatiion ill Giwni V, Cit,1 ofi 2:1. Ibid. S5anta Cruz and( Diet.- v. King, 2 ('al.:d 29, .165 8 1 ('al[. Rptr. 24. A section of the 19)02 act not involved in Ashmonre pirovided 162 (1)70)3, see Shrore tndi Beatch. Vol. 49, No. 2, April 13(81, p). 2:1. that "the title to then bedls of all tide-waters ... which are not 45' . For a )r ie f (Iihiscuss iioit ii f thlie New . e rsey Supi )re me Co (irt's i'a.5 nuavi gable ...s haill vest in the present owner of thi'- ad jacent concerning thir' publit c trust toictrci o in Uf'a Ni.\ss v. Borii u- ug lanil for aill purpose's. Ga. Laws 13)12, p. 1018. � I. ))'Deal, 78 NA. 17.I, :trip A.2d 571 (13(78). and ~ir o r Iuh at .\cp- 2.5. Ni iii, s upra niite 21, 27 Mlercer L.Rev. at 12:14. lito e ('ite V. Bfnolrogh ofI i. i- the .S'eu, 61 NA. 2316, 291-I A.2i 26. 67 Stat. 231: (ouinitaei at .1:1 US.('. � 1:3)1 et scil. .17 (1972), si'1' .)105 andt Il~cih, Vol. 51)1 Noi. 2. A\pril 13)8:). Ii. Ii1. 27. Uin ilvil Spate's v. Ma ine, .12(0 U.TS. 515, 517-518, 528 (13175). 16. Fill- a (urief diiscussuion uif lilt O'IIregon Supreme' Ioort's utiil iza- 28. 2:16 G a. lilt, 22.1 S.E.2d *134. t ion (if I be iloc irine of iqn fni inl State exr rel. 'I' a irtoiif %. lblg. 23). See, e.g.. M Ialo ney & Atusness, The Use andi Legal Sign ificancue 254 O r. 58-1, W2111.2 I 6l171 (196)411 see Shuore catl if i, n i, Vi il. 5I), oJ'fhe Alvan hliight Wafer Line in. Constal Boundary Mapping, No. 2. lJuly 13382, pp1. 1(1-17, 131.20. 5:1 N.('.L. Rev. 185, 2t11 (13174). 4 7. Smith v. Brice, is pra, 2.11 Ga. at I16. 241-I S.E.2d it 5I t9. [Tie M11. Thiis hail I een the role before. enactment of the 19)12 staut.i rt, voiived Iiuig that there- may h ave fien anl exss, o ffi'r toi J1ohnrimo v. State, s upra, 113 ( a. 7911, 40 S.E. 807. The state d led icati' a beav'h aria by thle iriginaal oiwuiur of ilii' beach, Snupre'ne Coi urt in State v..Ash more, s upra, 2:16 G a. 4011, 22-1 remauided thle ca:se to 1 (le trial ii ourt fi r a i Ii'terniu mat a if S.E.2i1 :11-, filii not rule ion the secition oif the act relating toi whether there bail been acceptanve hiy thle pliblic of such landowners adjacent to non- oenjviabte tidal waters, an o ffer. 6 SHORE AND BEACH 48. Li ties v. Stot O sip ra, 245-' (Ia. at 3P1I, 214 S.E.2d at 81496 The 58K. (i i aode Ann r 41 '411,5(a) (Suptp 1(187.. Thelf coiiintittee (onl court said: 'ItI would b' inlequit able tol Iimpose a public elise- Sist S (If the- (OMI fiSSilkfler of natu ral reso urees and it wo per- flent on a tiea(h tow ner' protpertY b ecausi SIe liiivrai ed lit er- sions select ed tI) tfit Boardi~ of Nat urat Resources. Id. k 4:1 ties froni itie lutitlic whicht (fit] nit? inierfere with his private- 2403:(a) 1 Sipp. 11485). There are various except ions to) the per- en~joymielit - .. Trespassing on laiids act latent to a pubitlic heach 1ilt requirelineolls For exanipie, upltandtri owerb teed not obtain is sit fi-e-quitit lv engagetd it liv pf-rsouls claiminig nut tit It or petrnit s it) itbuid *'privalt doe ul i'kiii ptiltings, tit(, walkways of intrterst itt the land itself. it is of litle It tvidettfliary value it whichI all' aiim-c thti iiarsh glas, noit obistructing tidal 1`10w." pru vinrg possess ion. anid sr anitiing alt oe is totially ilisufficienit Id. k41- 2412(fi) (Sllpij. 1(1St)0. iii otlr opinittin.' hI, at 3)15, 2(14 S.E.241 at WJ6). 5! 1. Id. k 4:-24(12(2) (Suppj. 1508,7). 45). Id. at 3117, 2t1- S.E.2d al 8117. Thtt court aidutdt:'t The ftoreshtirv lilt. Id. � 4:3 21412(4 1 (Suppj . 1)485) - itself bielong, toi the State arid Is availaulei lit all, withi acce-ss ( 11. Id. �43:13001 cI srf. ( Slipp, 1(18.). Itheretoi not dintln islied ." lei at 397, 2414 S. E.2d at Sos. 62. ld �4:-301115(a)) Supi t. 1)9851. 50. Ilii (;tirdycjr' v. D-sst ('e. flank, salt-u, 247 (Ia. 281, 285, 2741 63~. Id. 4:1-3003t~( I7,) (Supip. 1)185) ".E2t :30, 34. the ('utsct':"hli iidvltt' if S(a 414. Id. �'4;)-300~2 I Sipp. 1)185). Island must havt' allowed alt eastlitelit1 for ingress and egress (15. 1dW 43t lll0l. I'lti' (-afiliatinttetconsistsI~ 5 f thet ( mitnclissittlttr ttf li1th(le oceati itself, aitdt nb ier( access it !unit no w N't//tttw 'd It) natu rti resoutirces at t twtt pe rso ns selct eti hy the Bttard o f thetors/t~eetto~dif) be/ity to; It, I/talSft ..., t ht ... phlals doi iiit Natuoral R~esouiirces. jindicat e an- 'y then! ot tIfit part (if the develope ir lto create a 411. Id. � 43. t3l). (Supp Y~ )1851. TIhit latter t erno is defi neil as incarit recreat Iional easemenvrt." ( Enijhasis at ldd - ) big: "... Ilie dytarnict occat- fat-i g area of beach anid sandf 51. Rofllestoit N. Sr-a island Pnioprrtirs, inc., 254 Ga. 18:1, 327 S.E.2ct dunes, varying iii height arti width, the wecan btoundary itf 489, 491 (19185). which extends to tite ordinary hight-water mark, and the Iland- 52. Ibied. ward buiundary of which is tue first occurrence either of live 53. (7hernj '%-. Hopkins, siqtra, 2.54 (Ia. 26(1, 328 S.E.2d 702; State native trees 211 fect in height or greater, of coastal marshlands v,. Ashtnort-, stcpro,. 2341 Ga. 41)1, 224 S.E.2d 334. ..or of an existing structure." Id. � 43-30(13(8). 54. The constilutionalitv of a 1)102 statute, Ga. Laws 1902, p). 108, When a property' ownt'r asserted that the location of the tree granting this right was upheld in Stawe v. Ashmnore, suprae. 23(1 line referred to in (the act as the western boundar~y of its uons. Ga. 401, 224 S.E.2d 334. diction was soi vague as it) render Like statute unconstitutional, 55. Ga. Code Ann. � � 91-102a, 91-tI Oa (Supp. 1985). the Georgia Supreme ciourt ruled against hint. The court said 511. Id. � 491-9201 (Suppl. 1985). As previously mentioned, however, that the act 'is clear and unambigucius" antI that tihe methcid private upland owners have the exclusive right to plant, cutti- used by the Departotent of Natural Resources in establishing vate and harvest clams and oysters in navigable tidal waters its jurisdictiont-the omeasuring and mapping of trees,-was 'ra- adjoining their land. See "Tidelands" under 'Title to Lands tionally related" to the purpcmse of the statute: protection of 'a Within the Coastal Zone," supra. vital, but unstabile, natural resource." Riolleslont v. State, 245 57. Ga. Ccmdol Ann. �43-204 el sell. (Supp. 1985). For discussions Ga. 576. 26(1 S.E.2d 18.9 (198(0). of the statute, see Note, Rrgulation and Own'tershcip of the 67. (Ia. Code Ann. � 43-26111 et seq. (Supp. 1985; repealed 1984). Marshlands: The Georgia Marshlands Art, 5 Ga. L.Rev. 563 68. 16 U.SC. � 1451 sI seql. (1971); Georgiasi Env~mmionentol Law': A Survey. 23 Mercer L.Rev. 633, 64)1 (1971). ASBPA MEMBERSHIP OFFICE will moivee May 1, 7986 to 3000 Citrus Circle - Suite 230 Walnut Creek, California 94598. JULY 1986 7 The Law of the Coast in a Clamnshell* Part XXIII: The New, Hampshire Approach Att o'tq 1,1v. I La 1 (;r(euhidwav, M(Iin UWiolml, ( 'Wijir,, a IELjAE .. .SU'Ra'IDIlNG andl the Seabrook nutclear regulation withini thev (Gur ite State's coiaslk zl it m. Ini p wrplant: Ihese disparate coanstal act'ivities, 1982 New H ampllshire liecaviv t' 01 oI' t ht last (cimstiti Ibot th sti J ect toIC go vermilvitlit al r('guliliolitli, ('Xe [In- states toC gaii Unt iitved States approv'Cial h or its coiasta I pl Iity th bi )roadii raimg ot CI' conlmlpt oni iiary legal dispul tit(' fallagelivg il('Ct p ro gramII, wh icht' is blstd ()II ;in coo( rCdi ilt t'd alting New I aCimpshirt's -,horIt shrht~'int. Series5 of' existirig slate laws. 7Although thit state Surprisinigly, the Towni il' Ityes criminal cakse against hats oniy IS miles of At int ic I )cv:m svacoa~st, New two wayvward surf'ers went all the way to lie, state 11lamlishire proudly boalsts thlat it "hans mlore putblic' Suprmem Court. lin 19115 thte court upheld thecir (colvic- access [to th it eai per mile ot' its At hnitic slhorelille tionH fo r v iC )hitg i 4 lo cad orCiCaC Ii i i i( m111it iiig) sutitri-g to t hanl lerlialp ail ofivCther ('CPiastal state( ill tw hetat IC iii speciflietl tunles al t advlsi~gnatelv heachl.,'ITheir offenlse: Bving "sight ed 11po01 sutrtl)Cartls in the At lant ic ()cvall TITLE TO LANDS off ?ye, .., at app()rCximatclv 5:55 [oni a JItly alterioon J WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE l..l1) to :t00t yards troni the( shorelinie," adjacentii to an aliparenttly lprivztte be 1i atc al itIsC)niv 1101( 'arC Is noCrth I 'Ct TIV (ie Il ) MIIid harbo CCIsv giuvii(it Cf CIhe New Mimi ot- the( official "pubilic surling airea."2 Their lpelalt ivs. shire(C castaIl zCnv me. th first phazse CCI' th sltate's (C aslal uplield by tiut' high court: $ It) fie.Program, ('lilbra('es all1 coastall waters IC) tilt, seawardl Not surp~risiiiglydv. t vherC'uIoCk- Iic('Iar powCXt'r 1)1;ktt limit CCI state jurisCdi(tioll muil all lands1' alCotig the hllws gt'nei'atd C'( I l 41-vCot agC (cC) trl'Cv 'rsi's an I litigat 0 i. A\tlIant ic C ) 'vai sho re I t' i t Crii IhelloCr1tsmo1511iC IIi esim-C'iadll SuilC' the SCoviet 1,1ioi~lls ('lCherCCmll Cdisastt'l: Nt'wington town'I lint' CCI)I lie( tioirtl to Sc'aiiro~k onl tfie lIn 19511. as NC'w Ilanipslire's Itees slagC'C their' annual sootil. Th'e zoClit' C'xtC'ICCs hldulward 100 ItvIIteC' CCr tCC the aLutulillal show of clr 'CIllI th gtovC'ni1m.o f CI' iightioring linit olt' tin' Staff, W~etlariCs BoCard'sI jtisdlittitotl otver MatsSichust'Its ;CrotvtCste ille h-dt'ial Gm;CC 1t'rltntt'iis tidlal wa"ters, whicliever. is tal'tliC'r illaliC~l decision alltowiig 11CC' CC~t'vii' of I llt' Se'ab~rook powCer't Th'lese coaistal '/oCCiC hldsCI nim ,v Ilit' ClivivlCC ililto platit toC Itoad I iiHt14 ar ft tel alld to test the( rt' ct C r,' lipland s, litdelai i(ds ant 1 subhn tvrgtd 'Cllain s. an(I a Itoiglilliv ICv oCCI' tilt- p~lant filed Suit alleginig ", delays a11(d in p1ro rit 'it's iln t'st biishl iig a1 ft 111(" to A. Uplands cleanl up tor dt'coniulissitli tlie( lplitlit once't its (Conl- tV'nAJ)Il~tt'd 30I -yVt'r "('4)111 ilt 'rcial lift'" ICCis ove - ILssumiiing AlItho uigh Newv II-an Ishiirt' hits Cii)ly IX milIts- d' Athlbm- that lift' is niot abo~rtedl 1)e(46r( anly piowv'r is prod~tucedt fit' shoCrelkittt 78 lwit'i'C'It CCI' lik' littoral Hlulis along thel at Seabrook.l' ('cast is pub~llicly o~wnClvl.1 C ovt'rnittenlail C'tl itit's owtt Surfing antI the( nttclt'ar potwt'r plant art' only two t(t' orI manall~ge Ititore thnlittl i) pe l oit CItltt' propeCrty wilthinl the host oCI'at'tivitivs subJect to federail, stte anId loctal Itl0t) feet tdl' ft' Alat hitct shortelint'.1 h~li ;knltilitit, IlC' ___________________________ t't~~~~~Coastail zoltit iuiclmud's I 1:3 lilt's, of' ShtreifttIit' inl This is 1114i tIM4C1 ' in I CCir il %rli's (if 4Crliic's pli'-sC'iilig P~ortsilloutl~ilarm along t lit' Piscataq~l~k ti ivet; Mnil al('rltCi~t'vC'S.T CC alifcli vCCC'CCiC erVtivutCin (iaslo-i t 1CC'CtiCi- li'('t I C i'ttihlnvt'5atIttttl'' iory CIid (04' Low (olth State t)I1' tNvw t t;Cmgstiirt' i-ICit'rC-jCCg flit, C(M.-AM;I Z0CC))'. SIWVli lkil:IiCCitC ICCICS ildvCIICC anC ilC deilliit Cai4It'sis uto B. '1'idelands manIIy of Iit-so Collics iir any' d~iscuCssion Ii riat~i-i'i CCCCCC('r. tI'li' vilews i'xiprissedi l 'CmChisan flit, C t fi' !hr Cr iviv ti'sl the sriv (r 5Cit notCI As C lilto' CI' i t ort Iigitnal stat t's, Nivw IfampChirl )h i''Was ltceCCCssal-ily CC'tilla 1)04 allie( l 11 tilh:CCtors ICormCCr i'CCIltCYC'. flCC' VeSted Willi fil( itot ICC all tvioiusly 1111grallied l idelanls Offveoftit- flrm- Gtiral Sal lt't Caifo na (I ;1. withini its bto'detrs il 177li.1 I During paiml il' the colonii~uI auge'ncy iii flit' Slawti (it, ualiimCCni4. - ~8 i ve I'. leCrbiC'I'tl~i' aCuChiir aisi;ssi'ri s uopy'rigiv prlt r ii ii C 14r fivC C fiC r CsC 22! rfce liti CC tI, tlit art'a iCC W Withl ti lit, stilt t' was, li kt' prsvl''5'it --i 'v this series. Mainel Mind M.I.SSWt'IuSC'tIS, W it hilt the j~i dihCittl~l of' '12 SHORE AND BEACH Ille Nbs,,~lcllvwlt-, KIN'Clon'C lleient ly. Il11d1Cr ownler eXtetilds to 14ow ",;flcl mitak-, if hIlt ovl.'(l H ilt (oEil)1\'s iorIdilH4.,o' (It 47~,1" Somlie N4'w I Ianiiisliire o 3)4' Ililhldl4'd roils, siilij('4' on~ly to I lie pliblit. right t ~l'idlalldN XWlrl gralit4d( intll Iprivall'O'l('fi. owii-~ ip lSujec~t ()i' navigation. It is not t in' resuilt ofI piisifix'4 law, lo il'sced~'l ptibl i(' rigilts b ut of lon'(1 csi''iittiiiid 1IS(Ifi, wh'Iichl /ts beewnu'' BI'CimsI4 moist uliland~s alonlg the( At boil h coast are the0 comnmnon I(II gt' ho m. tosc talfs. UThe origin oif IpliblIicl S1,11v e* te ta i'rtinls sov(vreigiu fith' to tie this lisage ha;s lveen traced to) an oirdiliali('e of adjIoininig t'l~idialls as skicce('51l. tIo thit' Iliglisli (r'il~t. the (ooi ofNa sachuiselts, passed inl 1641 la., amended Ily the, ordlinanc'e of 1647], by, C. Submerged Lands Which theI OIel-1Shlil) Of uplandl(S UI)0IIllnavi- gabl ) wa iters was eXt t('tild to) 1 w water mark, Une ffil'lth Suibtergedl Lands Act of' 1953~,' New it' not (ov4' one hundred rodls.... [T11ihe usage Il~iiiiishiile has title tlo sutbniergedl landls witliiii a colillt iiieo, ;iiid lecailc 54) noliver-sal as to ripien 3-ge'ugraphlic(al-mli- hell along its At hint 4' coast. T11W into a sett led rule, in file constructioln of such Slate's caiirii to tIII,. area l)('weellh fthe .1-mile liniiii Hill grantls, Ilit only ill thev (')olony of' Massachusetts, thev vxtent of I lie Ifilitedl states, itirisdliction wais h lnt inl that of lPlyliuouitl, as well &S the D istrict r(~e('tced ill 19175 byv the( II.S. S ree(,onrt.21 o , fll.. DETERMINATION OF TID)AL BOUNDARIES 'As a rule( of piositive law.Ilic ordinanice of 1641 their not bindlnq Ilpon? Now-lbaijsh ir'; but A. Uplaud/Tideland Boundary fall'n Ivc conlsider that (I 11n1 wo as v fi'cl'd III fai'l sa un' yeair bowet n' Ncn'-Hamknpsh ire, or As a resuilt offthe coloniail o~rdilialce of1 1647,21 New so InoUCli of it as ""Is thlen Se'ttledl, auid Muas- I laiiijpslire is g('n('rally co inside('d(4 to he amiong thev .sac('h svll, whic h was con in ted fiJI aboutliffitq' Illilorit N of' states ili which file lowN-waler mark-, nlot the y('rlrs. nikinr;l hi/nt powf'i''oltu one goi'rnunent1ro, hlighi-water lii', is thle legal boundi~ary between public II,( slemild mNrztnrlly uj pect /thft l/t'' satif' Ilsayvs atidpriat ' c )ast a la~llr Id('d. ii 1845 state I' 'oldf spwitl m; u herv' andcr that or-dinance, Supem Cl'iou '~nrt de(cisio n, NAudd v. lbobbs,2' Suggests o'specially as Such was a('t tially t he ('ase aS t o one Iii.1 tilt, I 'ow-wa i 4 r muatk Io)! stit ittv ('w t l' vgal bounndary. shore oIf fthe P isc'at aqa river; w iih ioIlt et t,;a now, Blln that ca.se involveol only N pretrial pleading issues, afforded the prin('ipal part oif the n-,tvigabiv w~ate(rs an1d till' cor'4)11 stat ('illelts oili th(' 1)1ti~ldary qutestion of this State. ... appel.l(' 14) liavo' bvl~l' dicta, t hat is, 11111('cvsSary' to the' (I'cisi( 01.21 C. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Al a I t79 ('IvI )iriil'hntal la'w s('hiiiiar, %-xit e hinhe c-on- Location of the Shoreline t4'xt of a dlisculssion~ about legislat ion to) regullate wet- lands, a spe(ak('r op in('d that undl(r New I lamps-hire's New Hampshire presumably follows thev usual (4 ilIIlIIo(II l theV I)I[lkll"S tINV 14' towhat heV impIreCiSely commo n-lawk rule that flthe sea ward property bound- called "submerged lamd"2' 'xtv('idls ito "tl( In' man aries (of lands ad'joining tidal waters move with those hlighl tide liia ...... 114'c Saidl"tIa line( is th1)4 lill' oIf thle gradual, imp)'(en-ct ible chang('s calle'd accre'tion (1 '('alyt highl tide and not 1114' clr In' igh tide."27 it a~ld crosinu. 32 is (lIm-st i( )atil( wla't her tII' speaker.1 (orrveltly stated The state's coastal proigrami do'uiment asse'rts- NewNN I ampshire's coa~stal bouindary lawv for I ith' pur- that "[slignificant beach eroshion occurs in only poses, but fo r reqttlhtoi-yurpos1vl) s', St at4' law co(iT('ril- a flew ar'(as ak ing New Iliampshire's c'nast, antl these ing filling and dlred(ging in wetlanids doe)4s r('flr to the beaches are perilod(ically r('noturished inl conjunction "local urva'a high th'" ~with the Hampton H arbolr chIainn'l maintenance' dredg- ing projects.'"1 B. 'ndeland/Submerged Land Boundary NEW H-AMPSHIRE'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE W'here the coiloiial ordlinanc'e of 1647 is applicable, Jrivat 4' t it 14s miay o'xte s'1(1 wardVV to fthe low-water The l)Llllic t rust docirin' eii(, whiili p)rote'cts the 1)ublic's nitark, pro v liding hiat i14l st linei no)t'( mor Iian I0 rod xs - righi s of1 liaigat io n and fisbi ig in navigable wat (rs,:'4 orI 1,5 (tI t'vlt .14'wrlI of it( t ie igI-_WaIt 'r lile.,21 While~ is we'll &'st ablishedI in New I lampshire. Concord tib' 1845 Naudd dllcisi( in"' maty be duthil us atiithority oIil Malluit lcilit-inq Co. V. oeto,'all 188wt decision, this po iii it(114 st at('s highi coulrt, inl (1flenten t . Buions, d(l'cars that the Imilllic has the( rights oif flotation wrol 4 as fo dl ws ill 1862: or navigat io n, hun t ing andI fishling.:"4 Both fl ite Fnglish commoni~i law alid the Massa- "it, mlassarltoisvtts (111( Matin." it is no iw ali ('lus('tts May ('4)1onhys o~rdinant-' of 1641:'7 ar(' sourc('s ('stlablislwd'l role oIf Iproiptry that till' ripar'ian of public rights in thev statl's coiastal waters. JANUARY 1987 13 Supreme( ( oiirt qu1114 4t4' tco' (( loial! ordi4iamln'(f I64I icall c a :Lse cited liy tIll'- I h-egol 'Sprm Illl'n( iii11 its landl- as follows: mark l1tt9 opinion Iin "I(ti/c (4/.o f-,hor iton v. 11(0iiI "Every inhabilaiit that is an hio"'seloI4Ier shl~I applI)iedl it) pts~'4JOiblil'tl''4 to 4 o'oI'sl)h,'l4s. have free fishing anli fowling in anly great pornds, Ironically, inl the (-iled( case. li'rh'. %-. Loyjh'y, 1' Ithe anli hayes. coves, ntrIa rivers 54)o larre as the sea New fai UIIshiirv (-()fl't - while d1isculssinlg tliw legal ('lbes ani flowers within the presincts 4 f the I ef Ins ('1s Io tIi, IlPo's'crPip)I if te arII o I pre~ ofiI o on 'teI re, - InI( + towne, where they dwell, unless the free mnen of that the( v'iihigv's iuhahitaiits could tnol (-fiina, as a (-us- the same towne where they dIwel I or- the generall W )(il, t lie rigl t toI ta1 sanl fro f1()tll' n avigalile wa t er o)1 c'ourt have otherwise appropriatedl them, pro- SarIdboi rot n Ikk lo I (I ix with loin'e F4r tin' p~hill-os-e o f videdl that this shall not lIC extendled t4) give leave iiaking Iino rtar.~ I&'l( 4 tregon com-I) (it 7ii) ortln 1w ould(i) t~o anly mIan to ('011le ulpon others proprivtiv with- have Iwell oil soillidll)r legal grou'tnd i I it hadl citedl Ihe out there leave. l~ itationsi . Knowle's (]I(,(isi4 (I rit her trIn 1i-Icrh'q. The court, then dleclared: PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS "li this state, free fishing and free fowling in As pr('viously n4 ted, so me' private upIlandl p~ro perty great ponds11 [10 acres or larger in areal anll tidl(- owners, who (-,iii tracte the( souirce' of their titles to waters have not needed the aid of a statute for granits miadl( uinder thle Massachus-etts li~ay ('olony's thle abolition of written or the ~echiarat ion oif ordlinance oft 14i47, appear to have itill) to and rigit~s in unwritten law. So) far as them ordlinance (If lti4l the c'ontiguo~us tidelands, or l'oreshore." introllucell or confirmed these liberties, it was an Aside from suICh rights, upland owners gen('rally enactmnent oft New Hampshire's common law.... 1(4 enjoy 4)ther rights because of' thel English and/or New Hampshire common law. In additio n to thle usual right More r('cently, in a 1935 case involving a great pond, to accretions to their upklad parcel.; p~rivate' littoral the New Hampshire Supreme Court stated( that lprivatt' landtowners are l'ntitle(1 to wharf (lut into ad~jaceiit littoral owners' lprescriptive rights to maintain the navigable waters)' water level at an artificial elevation cannot dlefeat thle public's rights of bloating, bathing, fishing, fowling. LEASFNG AND REGULATION OF skating, andi cutting and] taking ice froin thel stat('s COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS puillic wat('rs." A. Leasing PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS Sand] anul gravel from the( hedls oif navigable waiters, F'romfl a p ractic al 1)oi1nt (if view, pul~t1ic ac ('5 t( to lie, inlu '41 ng t h le and 1 libil m(rgt'd land1) s, I Iiayi be ('xtriact (dI Atlantic (4-)can's sanily beaches is assluredl in New with stat)' permiission~ putrsu~ant (4o a New I lampslihire H amp~shire becauwse almost all of the beachecs ar'e p)41)- stalu~te.5 ' Ano t her law prin ivils l'or issulanlce of "rules ticly oiwned of, manallge(1.2 As noted! at the( outset, lthe and regullatioins Ifor thle purpose o54' 4protecting ... mrining state's coastal program dolcument ass('rts that, `New and~ fmili('ra rights and44 oil andI gas rights oliF te state.' I ampshire lias more public access per mile 4if its AtlIan- tic shoreline thian pierhaps any oth('r coaistal stlat) in B. Regulatory Functions the atrlion.' 13 Conceptually, it mnay be 'argued that the( startes., Many typies oif activitie's within New H amipshire's public access rights are rolit('( in the anicient English co(astal zonv11 - ranging from nuiclear po wt'r plants 14) c'ommoin-law doct11rine of' custo m. Legally, a c'u514ont is filling marshlands, anio troiji siirfriding to) (r('('tion (If 11such a usage as bly commhion consns(lt all) Ilniforlnl liral'- shoreline lprimie(tive dl(vicols - :or' roguilat('d by aI tice has lb'coone tlie law 4f ft In place, 4 r of1 Ilhe silbjet piletho ra ot federal, state and locHal goV'rri-filivital ag('1i- matter to whic'h it r4'lates." v'ils, so)n' 4 it w hi ii ass) rt f4''a lI~ 11li1Ii tl S As early as IS1i5, in Noel 44 . 11obbs, I. tIn' Ne w ll:111p- l it thle alt er'latur oi f th 11' isast r' is 4' p05i ion .1t shirt' high 14111r1 d1iscussed' cuistoml :Is a po)ssiblv ll'asis Chelnrinobyl in thel Soviet U nio~n duriing tlie spring for thl' publlics riglhts alrong thle coast, ;altlioigli finding of' 11484, ti)l)positionl liais inll(-rvsv'd to tIn' conitroiversial this dloctrine) illappropoJri'lle lulder' the flicts 4)f that c'ase. Seabrook iiiiolear p~ower plant alrong New I Ianipshir(''s lin Knoivlvs V. Dowu, 11; an 1,451 c'ast', the co(lil' liehId Hart Atlantic ('oast nevar flit' staiv 's souier i4ln border thevre h1:1d been'l Suff1icienlt l'vidl'lcll tIo provie'( ai IocaI c'il- with Ma~ssaclilisetts. Oln' of' the touighl vgal (Illlostiiils. tom (i tf lie inlhaiiitalins iti' I lalilpt4)l "14) depl)4sit up1140 raised fly Iliv conlrto~versy wa;s put this way in the Nowu tile belac'h or1 saitld-11lls 4 it' I li(' plaintillf's 1144' so'a-w'4(wd york TIimes ()II 4-10wohr 20, l1M(6: gal h&'r'd lito't )''1 high and lo 4w-wlti ma'i~r'k."' 14 SHORE AND BEACH "(11( Ihe the i tted States Nuci(v14l1 Regulatory of' its l)Oli((' j(ipt4' After the 19(t .Sibsrm I decision, Cm1l1li1i55ili 4(h'4id(s14'5 11111 chm1 4j11(l'ImJj4Wer- Ilantl the Silbsons legally filled1 a twqw-a(re 14(rt-Hio tIf their 1111 lwVii j-IW(l)erly (IeSigIie(, htilt kIild Staff'(-e, saltimarsh without a state- permit; thiei, by a 197(0 statult- shi 11d a s1 it (n 44114w41 g( v( -i1 i11(ilit be) abll ( 4(tVaedet4 1'(eili 4 fte toc-i ma(rshIland block its (Ilpertollt 111?was revised so1 that thle stat ute now ('learly w(4U1( be Th14 isslil' 141 W14lherN state (' nd l0(cal applicable t( the Silbsoll" remlainling lpr(I~rly." aiitll(im-itijes callj overt-ide I f('dl'ra1l (l('cisioni II tit .Sibson~ It detcisionl of 1975. the court's majority alit IMIiZilig aI nW('lear I)OW01r 1)1lalt if) tOW coastal up~held the( denial (If a p~ermit to fill, slating: "[T~h(' dis- Z( 114 to go 14I Ifiv ie is expecte(d 1(o reach thev ('4 4urt m ijssal o4f their appeal I fi-mn the (leniall c'ouldl he sus- Jil 1344514411 in t 114' rl('xt P-N, (lays lbecauis( (If t h1( taine(d ()Il tll( basis t hat thlir't land was not rendered ilLs. Nuclear I4'gulaloi- (It ( '(inlliissim i'sl d ecision4 useless, lbut that the1(y hadl only 14teti deplrived (of a Io1 aln I14w14oadii g 4411 nule 1 ar- fui(l at thI a SeabrooC4(k spec'u lativ pr'( O.". Ii 1)1lilt, iii N(wv lit Ilshirie. Its ~ (tq llt filn is l~l4 1) p()s( A (1issentitnjg just i(c', whliIf(Xl I-'5 g"'ope y 1l~ ne 1ighblofring t4 wnls ill Massachul~s('tt .`"'i pathy withI those who wisil to preserve' tihe marshes," saidl "the e'ffect (If' the( State's action is to4 compl)1 the New Hlampshire' statutesiregulate the siting, construc- plaintiff to (devolt( his laild to1 a pubillic purposl)~e without ti(41 procedure, dI(comnriissirlning andl othier aspect~s of ('(ofpensatioii l~y denying him the right to l)ut it to any nuclear p()w4~er Illawls. For examln4e, a "[)ulk power sul)- other reasonablly p~rofitable use''4' ply facility site e'valuatioln colmmitt(ee is chargedl with Perhap~s the most novel reported New H-ampshire makiiig f'iniioigs o)iI siting, landl is(,, aild air andl water Supreme C'ourt dec'tisionl co(ncerning regulation of (inital'Nts concernillg a p~ropo(sed Illalt, after which th' c oastal activit ies under the( police p~olwer involved the states ( (Iincil 441 R('soulrces and] Development may p~rev(M usly menltionedl hapless surfers inl the( small issue ' or (1('lva ('elifii(at 4 aluth(ri-zing the( construct ion, b~each1 co(mmunity (If R~ye. Th114 court affirmed their o'on- 4I11('ratiolui or 11aiilt(Ivlanlc( (of such1 a plantl.' Wvictionl (If thle `()ffvnisv (of sturfing ill ''iolation (of the Aside ft-nI 411 114 stat('s ro)le with regardI to) nuclear 14nv Owl rdinanlce and~ Art icl' 14 oIf the T( wn Warrant pi~~w'r plait s, NewN H amplshire' exercises broad regulat- adopted at t le Marc1h 1967 Town Meetinlg."4' Under (ory atilit hiot (AV4 vrtll('I lan1ds arld Water'S Within its ('()"as- stalet-san(t ic lI('(l loca'il law, the court held, the town tal 'zone. A g('neral state law provide's that the' stilt(, s was empowered lol confine suarfing to ce(rtainl months D eplar'tmen)(t (If IResour(ces and] Econo mic D evelopment oluiring specified 114 urs at onily o110 dlesigiiat('d part (of andI the Fish and (,ame, I epartilent. file bealch.'' "ill ('ool)(tat i4if with other inte'rested( agencies ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ail~l (ealillar ei(llts 5of the Stilte and with the alpprovIal of' the go ver-nor and council, shall tI( The author is gr-al ehl to4 Marcia ( . Keller; O ffice oIf auithorizedl Io issueo rides and reguilati ons foir the State Planning. andl to Michael Waills, assistant attorney pI-pir)sv 5(I f 1-0 ('irgfishing i'ights, marinera life, general. O ffice of' t 114' Alt orney- General, State- of New miniilg 1111d mine'ral r'igllts andl 4411 and gas righti- H lamp~shire', fort profiding solie (of the( source' mate'rial (If thle state, rl~l (] ' lot r(41l)(l plllrt i( in the' s(a- ('ited in this article. Special thanks are-t (hit( t () Mr-s. R.B. war-ol ter-(nt lIy of't 114 stlat ......... P ~ age' of the Manin C olunty (C'alif. ) Free Library for irt-4 v-i(diig ('pies oIf' thll Excivi. (N. if.) NewIs-hl('11U Whlile N('w I Ianipsluiie laws g(nv'-eriilg suc(1 act itlit's als (111-(d4gilig anld filling OV('IlI) 144 Sf11114' (AIXt(I'"l tfhe REFERENCES staIt pr5 iict4ipail r4 guillat m-y agetw 'Ioy is 1114' Wetlailid s Klar~d.Ti 1115igo'n(y was (crvatd' by tio' Fill alrtd Driedlge 1. tiltf v. Zv1fvr'bv;-!1 1111 NAt!. t26, 241 A.2d t55' (]Gifls). V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I4' ds Act )125' lllt7 ii( lIs((unl 244 A.2di at 1.49. in"il nd A cI, pasv in 97 hl usqety :. Th(- fines were pltilel(I uiJlll' hi' conuep4i1 t11141 tIwnls arC' Iln 196t9, ill t11' first .SiIOSMI 'a54V,' thle Newv llamp- 1214, 244 A.2datI 1941. shinie sqi1ipl-elne ('out-ir ruledl that tht('stat(' ll()'t Alithon'it 4. ()Inclt- of fi unI-1'~rvilng assal~ls conce-4rnin1g Ilho liroilIsedl staril)i ('l-red( ill (1(Drilyirg 11l4' reqltest Ily Ilo(ward( and O livia oIf thll 1.1544.lmlglwnllt rI-actor at Seallrook, Ilear Ne"" Ilflanip- shire's tbordtlr wat Ii MIIssallitiselts. is whelhe sitil 5114'r local Of whal (n~iginally ill beell a six-acreglv.4'rltllrils sholdIlI III' ait.1 to bbw0k its o(raiollll (41111 the1 plarc('l 4 If 111,1rshlauld, tilt- 1('rillissi(oll to( fill the(ir- landl. Feoliral 4 ,)'l'1111-nilln 11 l~iaairlwov4(I its gl'r14'ralti lollpow lll(r. F'or l.Ilt)I [1111del1'r Stlll(- law'. .5. A' V Tjfllv-, 4 le 24. 20, W86, 1. 1:1 (Nat'l vdI.). TI'l) I 111iled4 s4tit's 1II3l ill 1144' s('(cmid( Sibsw? )p4i~lili( Il. 11llldd ownI (IIi n NucI4lear Re4guIlatorV 'v 1411111ls1411 (114-c'id( ('any iti 4 i,-ibe~r 19154 11175, thet sluit(, c'Irtir upiid'1 11h4 t1t5i(stal' 'siiioti 14111i (Iljg f' 11vI~-varl-llh all vX11-f-1II4't;' 111w p)11iwr Massachtis4'lls G~ow. thl4 flluilg (if c4I1Lt'll W'0t1,11ld(5 .11 I-vs ial exrise Mic411ha1'4Xt(14 ~ lel S. Dukakis initiatedl Wapea fft i Io NFO 's d~h'isionl. JANUARY 1987 i I;. - Wl'1' v(A I V ON b' IFF 1,f1- ( (et. 14, I 9811. p. F. Amiong Illse silIf (: Tslet' - I I I, I ,i . I,II , I '1 (Ia, /1 a. p, 11/.' I, N vw I FaiI ~I II l I' I I by ;II, .FoIO IFL.III S ItnttI IIIIu; E d vva rd(I Froew r, jI)'s"I'it ( Il I/i l'-ll I. Il "Il .F Fit M" F, 'It, 77.1t 1 ,m . IT,18it. N W ILllt111iitil'm Yaiikee (thle c'onstr'uctionf dfivSisiont (I' lilt' 1 21 ( VG II. llri'4;itl'lV liwlilif 'hulk Service ('a (If New llam~~~~~ishire. Fie ~ 2:iI- 1 7 1N.7I 1NFL. ( I F I T. citpal (1itwelr ol SeablrooIk Statiotn); and thet New flaillpsislrI 2 1 ill Vold IhdV /14Sy id :u 5 7,2;-27. it I. statFI NiiilFear FDectimltlissiotlitg L'tnan(',tlg(,ommittee a state agiil 110- ij'ic li.'s1i,,j i~ will oiiscd,,/ l~q lit,-, pSl., jho iF,'Ii'iidari Iuiier '1gal mlatte'rs involving the c'ontrove'(rsiiFSlailliI(i .l ilatilihr il lei'Ft-'lllsll ialtF'kit~i't liatt reAfl k etitF le lded hevarings by thle Atomic SafetY ;aeid vIorl/i/ll Fi. bthill gti-I'ral aili's IlilFai, l/eli l, 611 "Il~ Mllil 41/- FLic'ensing Bo ard, a biranich of' the federal Nuclear RegulatoiY FItfi lomellaa 11,1 ill S c,4 slii4' ,44 51il44141. Feel /4, b1t 4l rll 11141* It ('linltthssillt. foclusilg ''Oil the adeqluacy (If' the controll .... h ias bol-li 1141111 til WItSachil elsl'ts that fil l Illall,,' *F its l'FIF~~'.atid titi' lIperatlors who run it.'' Ely/el'r (NII.) lb-0Itt l ,''l lfI'lallllg tht l:11 ii ialis ll11,ltl 'alt %C11' alif.(1' .Al'i's-Til','1: ()vt. 17. 198b, p~1 II( Seau Mtilos ;11tiill ts hew. i' pl-I'lIrIJ'tlor If idw, land1 alliillilg 7. 1'li 1/1I l'I'isldl'l(4ll (41 1( /r/1' Ocrall-1 sitall own ihv laudl to low% watir III:irk-, or. 14l lilt- Iflsatie it' f fold( 1)r1111 Impac'lall'l~il1/~ t ,S'alfoh'ent 1, 2, 1-1. -5. :-1F. onle Fiiuteln'd 14od1, ft the ithe sea (Allies ilid llots art-11-.ieraq -FI.5- 1182;11VIllireitafter c'itedltas NH('Pj. This, the first ph11s1 (1114,111(1' -i Flton faoll. IIiiiighfivNII i'' I-XtIA-11f4'f lo Pvi,,Iliuitl. is Ill - ti l' tati's coIasta~l prllgt'ai, "covers tite Atlantic ( lv'4llt, ilt- i I'yl'Ithele'F5 a se'til'IF rilt .' In Fi'414rtxN .Ill '.%T p' rl Flitia llaltiptoll EstutaryV atld thei Portsmouth Harbor F)Oitiont Ill till' Staff'. ltitatiollls.1 New FLllail~l-iirl' r'Ilst" the second segment, not yet applrovedl ''FN thll Iltilill (1r fill. 4t~'lltt ~ ,' Fat~siti if lY thte L-Ii'll'al (iovernttent. will complete ''the matlagl'tt ll'tit- c olo l'NIII Il, \Fassa(.'illl0st th milt' Its II the LslIflI't progra firs l'lllltelatin c oast inldgall' a~ rem as approved ity till'l i','Il'Ol oner lli~i/11l41/ 1,1l1il 414 4l-sc 4,' T h is114 541 l1 1 uol0', (;()%aitltiartl fil 1982. It was lirepared under the federal ('eata 110illahpoi /ii44' /144I, 4,115 it /,4111 41I/I /II,,Ifils I-,J41111lj414J M,, liltc 114 Zolfo' Matlilgi'nlI'lt Act (of 1972, as amendell. I1i t'.S.('. � 1-151 4r411 /lI/I1!. / fli.be , 1,'N".5 it 1l141!/ pci-'14/51,1'S /141 //141 l1/11' ll- "/ st44/. licgisfi.~rllI'irs 4m,114-1 Illil hivih IIa1, t icft(( aer Ilv ]I% I' Nav~k h. NFWit sii o .511/n tiote 7, at 1-:F. Fliatllipshltr's o('I lti~lF 1 flIIIIrltit II h~ad I'rll-r14-11% .111 govIer'ltll' 9.Id. i at F. 2-. 115 ,'Xti 'tlIIitlg Ill the state Wetlands FBoard'sjurisdfic- bYI sillitlill bll a t-1VItFI'nJiIfld ial IllM-44 11''liiS, 5(O fat ats lIFIt V,N ,(IFl tillil lFFillit. till' lilastalF zonve ncllmpasses tidala wetlandis. /41. at sIll( 141, c(lllltitllitiolll. ;tlIF nlot fb' telillllall l o~ Il il Faws III i';iig- lii. Thlis classific-ation1 is usv1'l for convenienc'e and ('IllsistI'lluY4 wfi(11144411 /ifl[14 ,141U/151444tl4.44i1/4.S11'1/' witrt Il h1(r Iar Ili'is ill t hisse'ries. Hulwever.ill son(04 Ni'w Fhiamp- 1 'i/ll f-lfil 1 Pi4 M/IiS si/4441' 45 44/ l1ife,414 po /4 / 45's il 4/14/1. shiire ('asl's. tl~ilt~inds. .. the lands between tile ((110(1 lilgi- ('ital 11il1.[ I 1';t1lli11a.'i, alfi'If.) and~ low-%a-at i' uarks. are referred to as the fil1'es/ll,''. 2 5. Al i 411411141 .44 - .1 s"Iltll l j444 :I N .11 .1i..l 1(9. F1 F FIS II. NIFI I'. s1lp1'4 114114 7. It 1-2. Of this Atlantic shorelite'. 157 'e- i11(71 I F('timprecise fil terminill I. 11111 i's fi'at-Fl-mltlt. l.A.ss titat 11.1 mile oIf tile (l('l'tl fell-i Ii 21 i. 14. atl 11 T i'1tiativei aildfeIfl , New FFtllan flhirI' is lpriatel'l Ilwlf'd. Id. at alpI. IVAI. L . 7'. 1ibid. F itliilihasis alfilfaeI.i 1:1. .1104-in, V. llil/i/4-I. 11 I'S. (It! lPt.) :117, 4118 ( 1842t. lI'forlt' Fl'l as NIL1. lRSAJ. 'F'FII' tallti' 51:111s (flat ' Infinitei gl Fi511 ti t,'a lislif Atlwriu'atlFIsln lil till' Etiglisit crollwn IIwnt(idF tilf l'atllfs11 ill Flis 510114111 silall Ill' d"I't-rttitll'IF *l(''14idttg II) till' Illiblifiilv %%ealiers tNll' Iliap n fthlat hadI no till' latill al.il ld~ sIntol ta- pl-llill e f' : l't,' a'II' islaFFll'lfdil I'.I'! 104sbe1.4./ I Il-4l'ishl. Cos-t ([l /oll/l.l i fetim I I.% ait' ulwiat airk hen' tti's Sill%( (11' li1111 k'otiI allis' :(i -18 Nal. 1 )I-;i S-% v-j lllsi( VlttI'(. /.1444 I/R oILD ili'."I'lorl4l'' Ii -50,t'l' 41114/ev (hill ]986/.s it) for v a fral'f 1I'ltsilll 4 tll' IliIi' rst iltil'. 1il I 5.'4'[it s NI 7I I. (I.,l ;I t No.- I. .Itifg nt.;i' 18, I I w t 14I (Mblsti lts's ;ie NF I I . I iV1 l 9 iI- I 4-xIlo 'lit. I I i1 oIII ilIr.s vSI ,IftI 1 5 52,v iN. F, Frly 1118. lF1t 17-8 d (carithte) i15 1 114ll4 c1//ks. coI. and 30.'I\ilil'eS4v1l. (ill N i I. I 1781( N.1 F 'I lltI('ttitr plav(. abi Il'lla d lpl~l st wter il~tr''' 1.11"b V ;I, Ll biS Mi d :31. Cloiotit' I,',aI'rs, 1: I. 0 PIG1 i6 owni'ii.d rookI. .s1n4'4 mit11 7.vw erse it Ib 2.ter_ :18 3. N llll,4'l/ SteltIlo/ (ilo 7. at 3I1-1341. l/4'1 lNi.F 2(1 /Iliv'41 /"SIil,' ,I .l141/l' .1211shr I'S. vaer (15d 517-518 528d :1F -I. 11/rillIl rvf dscusion' 7NIl.' IllS. pF81 i Inisl 51111r1:1 . %iiIligh ile' .14(111 10//f- itv s Fiijil J,1411- (1 19:12).41 l1lluclkyl4l44i4/ riht ilrlod fi'l'l';Ilvi5t-Ill to ialfa [aw;. al( vti,-Flkud i Enli'stal' 16 r afiitdscusoshOe 47odracse &oinnlw ovhm & BEACHVo 8 N.1 (-ovi 90 . Il't Il III ( ;t 's' III cioa"Ia ";II I wa., is Impes'i '.I. Iit.i 78''.N% of'I114 54) i Ti,411,' (WIi 2411. l(984 p. 1:3 (Nat'l td.). 'Tli artic](e als' 7. it112 ''l' lmirok plaut [Ill NewA Ill"P~tsIhirt's Cl istal zone], all .1: 1 Id ;if I :I -()f Nv%%' limp1shirr's Pi nuiiv Atlanti( c~iastl11lle, 1,.4 I'-.0 ll wgItt re;14 flIIlt IIvIIlertII' 1) '. fill' Publi1c Service "T" l,bi-atIt.I~l.-o1 kuiillI11% all Il li.' Has 44ItI44 becil i 414''is44 I fltlilINIt li 4 Nc'.' 1IIlflip'lln il1 (4o11jullu'i4411 w'it)h 1.5 other hil pibitdt Ivulv4'4iol and 111 ti4v14I Le'ss lIitti 1 I lutil' .' is tfiliat s sv m I'll s4t'il) 11Sx N4''.' Eol'.l(14d4 sates. was t'ohl(evivedl pliv4I14'I oNNII'. l. h let It lill IV 1. a (11'4alic blo' t4' 1414' I j17 D IJ 'IIoI Mill Islailt ac'(id('14t, at a 411. olivivi'.j s Lma.' Dlliouti f,' 71N -1 I'_ (av.Ii's V''. 1I), ;I s ti1111t4d il 11110' Wlt'llIi ttilili'S tIIWIlII9 1111 1 pI~I ttiIIg their gi-nerators Stil ,).' rc l. 'I'hriltem X. /IjU!/ 251 f ir. 581. 44)2 p 11. 2 71 , 677 clost' le4 Itlalor-cocisultii'ts wouldim r ethe eitilt'o ie- l( !)WI). Fl it a riel iliscissioii of Ito' Th'/1 fl,' lto (-ase and Ilhe tricit'. Supl141ied. doc4tritfic 44 unsn14114 see Sho,,v' & IB'1,h. Vol.. 5(4. No. :3, .Jijly 11182, pp. I 1. 13 11 "Ini Ni''.' EingIhtul. some New~ Hamtipshire itowns w~ould liki' to -IS. 17 N.H. 52-1. IIn t1.41 casc, fm.,wvver' li cute(41 fiell teull a townNIs lint.%vil ope1rat ion oll Se;Ibr.14k, 1111 the' ba~v toetii ovverrutlvd iilhabilaittlls cuitld ,,,,( j.Illily "444 vntry 111114 tIfi land of aniii di- 11% Gov. Jlohu IL SIIIIIIIIII. 4 o.i. Michael S. Duikaikis of Massai vidlull4, will1 bY' fiiill-akingIl)444 S(444 "'PI'41 d rtit( 'mk-i'l lhi'nitia, Chiuvits I,%;i,' 4'44t1idt4'iIIg v.Iilliet I~I bac1k ilii' 1444rde4r t4owns ill fir thevir use. mitder a4 ctistoni 1) thit o - Id." leat .527 hIls still( het ti' 'he Ciriohli v'pl4s4ion1 iit-vorredl. '14)., 22 N.H. 3S7,(15 I "-)I Mr. Dlukakis "anis thei 54'4lhrookJI fuell loading 51111pp1'4.... 4 7. Idi. atf .115. Mlassavlctsett s official~s 541'. they will appeval lve Ifedviral 4S. 25.1 ( W~ 5841. 41)2 K 2d 6)71 Nl?("''si orde-r." 411. 7 Nl.112:1:)IS311). 57. N'.11.16A lI)2-F:1, 7. 8(Slipp. 1(485). 544 Ibid. 18. hI. 1: Ii) (Suppi. 1(185). 51. 8(4' ''T11dl-lal115 itindf.l. i tTil vi)La4111s Withitill 11' ('0as144I Zoin', 5(5 Je. S ve q. id. 1494:8.44 (SupJp. 19.5 ), 483.A:I I c seqf. (SupJp. 1(485). sli0j11. 4)4) lit. chl. 48:t-A (Stupp. 1(485). F'1r dl154'15s1(o1s of 114r)110111 New 52. Sec "Li-ga41 EIficlt of P~h'sic:,I C ' anges ill fll-i Location o1114f fIll-' 1441an5Iipsh ' lvgis~laito(II 544' Stilssi'. lIti'1foii s JcyisIOII1.ll ill ShA11 110li "l 1Iuller "I tl'erllilIull lol ofTidail NvlIuais. 04.i~i Ito opshiirc, Is N-1.11 It. 24)5 (1(177): Itivoopl,~4irl#iffll Lat' 4.). Iii coliltrasli11g NI'.' I lllliplshinl' v 144' f w th Massachullsetts 1411'. - A .1;vl'iilop P,, J/. Ill: l1,111dir vs. Privill" 1111co'115s IlitW tl Ithc'N v N I'' all41J5ipshir high 4011 '%olt' iln 188(: "Iln thilsl . 51 114' . lii'ir 50/01114 25.) 1t N.HI.K... il1 115.1 II), I19( 1211. Irlle1' f (it' hi'-ftl Ititi' ill Iliii lidt-lalmds] 114 1114' Itirival.41 liplantdl (if. ibpsmi %..Seto , t11l ML. 8. 25(1 A.:ld :1(7, I(44)) (.iso ). A ell'.' Iligh1 waft4' I11-4.1 Thir lieji ol 4'411111.l1 . right1 (Ifrl-las(Illaiv 25(49 A.2d 6-7,9(4 190414) l154 li;vs Inv'eii slitficilt-1t fllt all till' pu1rpo1sv's forl Mitch1 Iho' 62. isn N..10a'. 115 N.H. 121 1, 3:1:1)A..2d 2:1(4(1(751 (S8ilpsmi Ii) I 417 ollialli4 .1jdlilli~Ill'c '1.1411194I't14't- 111441 14'' fil , itih fill."' (e',m 4)8 f.."dii'4 IwY N.H. I.;m''s 1(171. 22:11. l411ji1'itd 411 N.1H 1SA -ISN-A..14 ("d.1 /o/I~. C. B". le i, 151 . silpro. (if; N.H. I. 22. 24). S4v' ;list Isil~lip. 1(45. (li .u l/n,',iix .l 43I~..: Nl.11.it 4)17.4)1!j Nl.M.lSA 182.4) v 1.' I ) I11 Nl. I 11a 125 121) *kI ; A.2i lIat 2.1 112 11 ISlIppl. 1(48.7). )5. Id. a41 127. :1:14) A.2dl 44I211 5.1. NIL. USA 1:111 21 el svfj I S'ij4pp VW4851 I'toter thIls 141w. 'till' I d . 11/ 411 I)1l:31. :1:14i A.2i1 al 2.12 213. For1 d15t5iscusion of' flii 11.111 of tIh',- .'1114' t~vik 1td l 4111r 1 afc olllt lltI 1111'.jlfi till' fis ll 41111 Ibti)e,.N. 12 SuIffolk 11''. 7755. 771. 7S85.784) 11(7S), Sliortill. al.4'l'l. l(111l'.tis t511 41sim and suc h t oi 45u t144'V ageluiv a11 4IlI'a1' be 'I 147. 1' 414 1(4qN.II.I(..,. 258 i ) 1(771 s44111 441111 gla441.' '.'Ililll is oil till' Ill-(] of1 atlt' 111'i)441igh' 114a1r or fi7 .8111)' . ZIolurb)e,'q s qo. 1( N.1 41, a 12(1. 24 1 A.2d ;i1 1941. 55. lit IA 14upp 11111(851. JANUARY 1987 17 The Law of the Coast in a Clarushell* Part. XXIV The Pennsylvavia Approach In- P~:i,,,ni 11. F. GRiABER: (;iY'cbr~u', Alarb? C.omedy, C'alifornia p iiLAI)EiLiP111A - where file 1.11inited StateS ('On-A. Uplands stitutiiij(n was signed 200 years ago this Sell- P eniber - lies at t lic ('eiter- of Ivrnnsylv'aniaos Motst of thle uplands within the D elaware Estuary highly indutst riaijzedi Delawarev Est uary ('oastal zone. coaIistal zone are, of course, privately owned. Geo- Local'at '( at he Inucture II' ti( he )elaware anid Schuylkill graphiucally, the( zone emnl races thev TIinicurn Marsh, Ifiver's, tite cit v is hoth tit an losric treasure, anid a co(vering about 500 acres, all that remains of the husy seallort. tidal wet lands t-hat originally encompassed at least II istorinc sits and po1( j(rt a('tvflties ane two (If the( I0 13,0(00 acres itt Pennvsylvania's D elaware C ounty arid co(ILstal issues, ad~dressedl 1v thei Common Ilwealthi of Phliladelp~hia.' 7 IIoWe%,er, Sinc(e this mnarsh is owned 11enn1sylvanlia's ( oast al Z lilt Mallageentei P~rtgraill. Iny filie Federal G ;(v(rnmfenit, it is excluded under TIhtis I)NIg' tiai wasaprxv b111 V ( y thle Pederal G ; vw(rnmen It 'C dera I law fromu Ilwe statle's '(last al management iln 198). p~ro grni..5 "'hile- thle Neystone State's I1lelaware Estuarv zo~ne is usliallyv assoc'iatedl with manutaf-ctur-ing anid shipping, it B. TI~delands also affo rdis recreat itonal 4 )I~plort unities andc serves as a fish] arid wildlife. hahit at.- Among po licies enunciated Ilit Iennsvlvania, as in a few (Ither Eastern states,'1 iii thle coIastal I I' griam are gprt iding ditifto nal plublic nut st (If the tidelands are inl private oiwnership). access for recreation, imlprovling water quality antI Althiough rillarian otwners' title to1 the strip (If land enViAnc liing fish habita etween tli(' high- and low-water marks is generally rec(Ignized,l it is unclear ho(w tite state dleparted froni TITLE TO LANDS the( English commoln-law rule (If sovereign (ownership WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE of such lands. Unditer the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management C. Submerged Lands P~rogr'amu the stat(, has twNo separate coastal zoInes: the lh)elawar(' Estua~ry coIastal zone anil the Lake Eri(' As successor toI the English crown, the, Common- coas"tal zonue.4 The( D elaware Estuary zone extendls 57 wealth of Pennsylvania oIwns submerged lands within miles along the tidlal Ilortion of the I )elaware Rtiver; it the( D elaware River anil ot~her navigable rivers and varies in %xidlth fromt Ivmile inl urban areas like Philadel- st reams. phiai to 31/L- miles in Bucks ('ourity!" Lands within this coastal zonle mair' be classifiedl as DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES up~land~s, Itidelands antI submvnuerg'( lands.' ____________ ~~~~~~A. Upland/Tideland Boundary nis tisl I nv-wrti ill a settle'S of articll's plrl'sv'illig a vatpskil' %l'rsilil (if till' (lclo'iilpraria, Ill% till'c elast for n1111 B~ecause of th(' publi("s, rights in thie privately owned attorneys. 1111 artici' ritrafl surimhlarizes vertawl aspei'ts of hetill delands, which will be dIiscussedl 1 elIw, 12 tI,, loaion (1)St1111 l tl Istat 1it' llrt laM l [I% of till' 'onl)[1111111Wvalth ioII o oft i'vl'it lsv.ivaIIia I ('llcl('niO'g l till (.akai zo1II1 ll). Spilal' litm)itat ion pllS ol (f the14 upland/tidleland h) U ndary ('an be significant. ('111 i'all-.Ill, '11 I-pll anaIsis 'of flilml of til se tolilil s or ally diiscLs- Ini artt 1837 case, the 11cinnsylvan ia Supreme Court sion1 ofretlhlt~d mttvitl-s. The1 v.'11's l'Xire'sst-1i ll t his tlttill' 11ttlho m relferredl to the( "ordlitary high-water mark" as being the ar u'sinti sri'sIl ,ottncis~riIvrfil t il 11'''t ti aitil i ~ landward limit (If thte "comtmon1 highway, over which all fo rtiltl. 'rI'l111111 lyel' till' ()T mf-I orf till AltoIlrtlI' GVi'taraid Stat,' (if ('itizens andl alietis may sail ."" Subsequent case law IlYI',il'tl' II. F'. tGlitwl Thi-ll' m ;tlt i'lIs, asslitrs copyr'.tight lprol~tlt c11 doe(s no( appe(ar tol have defined the upland/tidal fit Meti' fits? 2:5 aItt111s ItI S t il'5 lhssii ourntdary arty moIre sp eciftic ally. APRIL 1987 *9 B.Tiideland/Submerged Land Boundary The I 'eililsykaiia (,44mlst;ilIc Z()ie( mamiigeIIv'tI Pro grall docu)lll14llt 4i115 14m Improl14 ving publlic acce(ss. bound1(ary t)4'w4eel p~rivate'ly o)wlied4 ripl(:liall 1.111ils ;illd PRIVAT'E RIPARIAN RIGHTS the portion 4)t'llie Dl)'Lawan' Hiver al1d 4 thier 1idala rive'rs and strvamls O)wned' b~y the c(1114l~ati ' 1114 l1'iesidvs tiell riglil i4) griditil~, lat1tlrAl atcret jolls I'ennlsylvallia ( oastal 1o14' Manlagemlent Pro lgralli (14c14- to their I)Iop11('ltY priv;1t4' ripilriall owilers havi' a mlerit statc's that IN li il14' is "(10-edilc as 1114 height ()I' comolnlo-laW right (It a((4's5 to Ill lit' i'joiliing river and~ water i riar y stalg4s of' 14)w witer cuil t'It'(lie by the right 14) ak ii ikt' landinI~g whlart 4o pivr I'm- I heir o1wn drou nght 4)r zirtiici at Imeal is." oIr thte pul) Iic's use, slibie~t to tile publl)ic's righit.". ' C. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the LEASING AND REGULATION OF Location of the Shoreline COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND) WATERS As aI lproi1)rly bouIlndary. thii ordinary 141w-Wavir A. Leasing miark Ilhiov4' Watlermard witll] gradulal. illipvIercl'lt ibiv aecvretioll." Bui t prIiva V itt' i~ iMl (MW 114 rS l1(V ti10t [The Dep' artill(ivill of, EnVl IvIril11'lit lal R4'5o (11(4 '5 Wit ii enttitledl to laili t'ortncs by tll(' d14lo~sit (It 111at4'rial 4()I (fl' g4'ernio~rs aprvllr4VI, mlay eiitt'r intit I igr4''illeillts the river bl4tom11 c'ither l)v theni ()r w~ith their knlowi- I 'm the r('44very ll' ore(Il, teld, cii, iatciral gas Or ally ('dge o r (4o)Isellt.~ other niili4'ral d14posiits beleaiith JIilads owli('41 tv tli( PENNSYLVANIA'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE B. Regulatory Functions Ini 1971 Ithi( Enviro4li1t'imenlk Righlts Amendnieit was add edI to Ih I4'v14l~lisvlvan ia Const51 ituti1on. '[Iiis alivildn - I'veiltnsylvallii; 's Co iLIasta1114 l zor ii M Iag4 Iivi4'l tIPrograill mnerit r ads 15ill part: is being~ impiilll4'ileted throir4g i a Imllihecr ol Statu~tory l Ie msyvalf pu111)c i lt 1 it 11al l('54ouI I ('5 r4 th I ' ro vis ions Ihaili art' I 1(t work(4 I itll 141it( pr114 gralil 'I11'i c)Il1ommo p~roper'ty (It all I14 he people, inluinh~llg go'n-Deatlo O'Ivrm ivallsor- sfi vd ('ratIons Vet c) ( nil. As trllt4'4 ot heseag('11cy fr4 admllniistv'rillg 1114' 1)rogratlll.;- (-mllon y)U rt45 11'o4(1I IAs W4a trishalev oil' FVh'div O n.I oI' cti111' pr inc ip~al laws incorpo)4 rate Ic1 il t h Ile miaintailn tfvll(I'm IcIII th (.110-iett ofritl 14'Ib t'411opi. i programl is 1114 FloodpI1)inil MaintenIanict, Act oI' P178.;" I ncer this ai4-I, each 1141im icipality idI4'ntil-wdc ais having This cot(ist ituLt ional I pro visi( (I is I et wo rk4d intol4 Ill(, aci arilrl 401 Wrali's Stilihiject 1(o flood41inrg Wits lr'qli rc'd to) _4 1 s v'1ivan Coi ast alIZ 14 ia oll M Imgv 'Il~l 'ltP ro gra ll. a dopt 111 141(411iplaiii 11 Ilalge 114'Ivii 1 g h-p iat iolls. Sinc(' (4)14)1al fI lys. 1114' importa)( (F oII14' Ith D14' la'1 wart' T he4 1;II s~o alt4y and1( E."lcroachm(1 eI141ts Ac t 32t4liir Ri-ver as it4 (-(111ll4Ion hIigh iwav l(4Iay Vo aigat io h as b(4 e'I perm its 1ro4 ili D14 ep artm114eti (Iti' l-'iimni (111 ltal legislati1vely r(,(-4 )gl1 iZt(,(. I.~ II addcitionIl, ma~lI y 114 'II Isyl- Resorcv bL1F4 5 )'o 14 IN' ifly 4 141m, wa('r obstrFcl(o o111 4r vanliia Sutrvm C our1' 11 t de4c isio ns rel'r to' 14) ( pub'l)111ic's enlcr( 1a1 114'Ilml is (c4)nstrulcied, opra ed maF~ (4.Iin~ lt al ined, rights to 14 us( lidv-14' o~ wv I11 lans. As (,silly ats 18:17 1114' m1411 od 'ifd, v'i arg('( orii abt dnd D111111 '1 )rt4gi rig a114 fiIicig court no4ted4 retilt p~rivate' oIwli(rship (II 11h4 I idvlallds41 Wa~s activit 14sar' ro'gillat(A4 as ('11cro achenilts.:1 subjeCt to till' right Of' 1114' tI)LIbUi to Iiavigiitv o v4'r such Amiong ofit h( starte laws, ne(tw4 rked i1114 1114 p1rogram lands wh4'n co1veredI fly watt'r. 1 that are' palrticultarly significant ill 1114 1D)4awar4' 1sttlary An 1861 dec'ision 22l bro( adly stated4 tel pbics )I(i' rights zoliv( al-' thel Soi Co (4nse'rvatio~n l'aw,' 1114'ill ('leHan in the Detawari' RiverI as follo)ws: Strvams11 La.w,:"' the4 Op)lsn Space( Lands1 Act ,:" 114' Soldid Wa~st(' Manaig('11('nl Ac-t,'' 114 Tit Swag4' F'ac'ilitiv A ct : "..It has ll(,V(,r h)4'4II considleredt a I rt'spass againstacdti'IIscr4I r5'vtin A .' the state' to gaitter stone14, grav('I, and14 sand( ((it ltl lvHsoi rsivto (t: of tel lie l O f~ ((1((r publ~ic rive'rs, or to taike fishi, REFERENCES 4)r i44', (I- (trillw o W44(1tirer, dr IIo h~at~li ill th4' publlic' waters, . .... 2~ I. Thev Il-41gric( wa Imr4pal-1.44 11(((hr 1144' le-dvr;l I (IsialI /A(IIL Mna~jgt-mii', Ar l 441172, aIs amci('Il((, Ili I .54 1 151 0 svei. PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS Among offir 14(pa(sctl ri-sm(icr(( l1ciIIldgvI'i(tl issm-4saddi-r4's('dI ill t114' p(ro(gram ;crv c4a4a hd~I14azIrl5. (11-'(tIgi n ;111 spol'~ dipsliS4S4, Since 1114 Dela11ware4 Estutary co(LstalI zon Iis' -so5 h~eavi ly and11 t'14 rgy f i-klily aili ug. ('simmemovv,4) h ,I4114 /JI'r Pe-pinsyloill i dvlpd,'4 pubI)'(1l)1Iic a(cs t(o'5 14n avigable 1'Wate'rs is hil11it('d; ( fis(fil Y"11 Vo'4rri (nd F(1/ 4i'll) (edr,1441HI 1(41loarlc Sigler'- however, 11h4 co4)11lmo14l~lweail, ili coopera4I'ltionI Will local 4111CHI tIk('(4'l(ItbTc4-i1('d 45;V, .M' II~ goivernment'lts, hils proNvid14'4 aLc4 ~it a 1irlne)4F(It olar('as :1 lid. al 11-21 12 1l. 2s2) of recr'at ioll a, hIONV Mid 4 QClt114 ((4 1 giCalI Ii1 14 Italt~(T.' 10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHORE & BEACH .1. 14i at i. 1I I [ tim ,ftlsvariia and NvA Yiprk- ;li' ftil' only two Editorial (olu d 1 Wjiq'2) Ilcipnsitad julil ,'stltirinc, atlas. tlil' altili'ciic(I N(,w Yirk dtid Westhialnhtonlivach') ? Ilii 1W, opft~i4lt Illevie ar (01,two I~44 ilt lisitiss liti' (;ri'at lkli'vs SiL 1,aukii-m-f Iivver gplirtiotl of N(-w 'nrks iistll mIot" ' . si'i /ow & Bf'uilh, Vill. 51, Nil. 83,.lilly 1148, positlt Soilutionis, 11.iiit'lY: p7. Sitiilarl ,. this, ariaili' will low dliseliss ''mv i' Lake - ReluOvt tIhe 13-groinl fielti anid allow this short' to Efii'' cwlla ZMIV. go11 back18(1 14) its lnatutral conditiont141. 5. 11'[ft zillici vxtvild.,t-s l'jsWar l i to i Nv%% lcrsvy stltl' boundiltary, - ( ' lntruct groills ill thle vroditedl arv'ea as protvidled ili Ahtilil is fliii iiddii,t' 4f fliii' DI 'awari' Iiv('r. southward Io ll t-l the or'iginial dlosign (441 IhIC g.toi11 field aind l'eldt'iislh whir'll lici tidal[ jtltlil'l-lc. '1 o fltiti' I vlaioall' vtlrs, andi %i'stward lebah l-ul heegols I' liii104114 fhftml,111115illolii'Ilillwt'atlS'llckl ~v's lI'l v'alliv of the d(welopueh)14Ill wilhilit, alld cast of', 11W Ilvup-I~ lim~it of t&Ida illf~laivim- on flititi tribl'iarivs, and tidal groinl field pl-obably ntak-es I-i'eitoval (if thev groinl field ariil fri-'siwaltte ('ilastal mvltlatldls. l'(NI'ZM�slipr not,'v 1, atI-II Illiaciplable lip the owliert' antd top tax c'ollec'tors. 11 112. IN'.I.IA T D Yas ltv it"e eiS l n oa Ii. Thlis 11:15 ifi -at ilmi IIi ( 5 II l .1 cI N-1.ill 'lfll Ill' j c11Iiiisist ci'ty' wit ItfS '' JA aIt sae 81'F tled tt n( tta ot her artiv-h's Ill 1 his serivs. gOverl1111ilne s will pay .$5( miilliont to) i'plahce thec sand. 7. '1('ZIR 511/pr0 mlti 1. at IV-1. Ilolmeowners are Ito pay itt p-trcvnhi of the .$71) million 8. Id, at II-I I-I, ll-:l 1- 1-1- . liaintenalliceta. ' 14. ThC 1 i Il(t sa arcV kIC lDIAWArI'. Ntiallf', NI;VNS~kc('IllI~tS alldl The grotin field lhas been ill pilaco since I 962 and~ has Virginia~. Ini Ne-%%I Illllslisiric. smuc11 llirati' lteris t'xIIildl~ 11 toleiin do nst matn ed c'olcluisivelv Hilha a Iteachi may' he low-waler mtark. liit aliing 1till stalvs Atlatifiv (Nva tl'llshlit'4litle BthiJit. Vi)L. i.5 Not. 1. lfat~iary 194X7. pli. 12 1:. IiI New Yiork. 511n11' eNI)ect that saItti alont' inl this area Will Wit SOlIJI ilfl(' lilll';ltllds arv pliviatlf. ()WllI Iv. .;,,, S'- Breech/ Voll I.51 No. :1, vXjIvI'i(.ltcv Ilit Sminle wavt' 4'itil-Iltltltvil as. that which .llll\ 1148:;, Jill. 10It I. ctaisvd thev ineak-IIhIOughi inl 19S2. li. ll'Z.ll,M sill'ut IlitI 1. at 118:187: I- M~aloillv & R. .AuIMIwI', T'he, 'llles(' c'onsidierationts leadl Itic lip dhe coinclusion liatt bytif ~~~~ill f/it Al"1 Bie'lfr.im.il )I11 11Itl(Ii ll/lje0 Alripi/iii/ it NlI pr.lio.15 t4 144) i' l) mtscl soltit iiml of plac'ing sartil] without groinls 11. I('/,MII sn/oilr imic I. ait 11-:1-87; llo,sv e. Milsatiishti lull C(' p. iIs ulllsoulldl. It w~ill noto mtll ,.waste 1111)m1v ,N itu will f'or a 12iFSupp'. I Ifi2. I 16.5 E.1ll'a 10,) tintev [ull the pr'0(per't ol)XIvi'I i11141 a false sellst' of1 12. Si'i "I'l'clnlslallia's P'tidle Trlust lDoctrinc,i" in.11il. sectivlNt ahollt i'ecurrol'l(' e of scrtiol (s vrolsiolt. I:t. J/ttle i. Shook 2 WAharr 5t07. 5:15 18:371 tt'')i.iI()hii II1. fl/oiL 4 .-Ao','ic~i lul (a'iiC,'p., 26 I [';1. 260t, 24)2. 1447 A. 7:17, 7:38 (19141 HtI )isf v. M1its ub ishi lul'l 'iirrp..s up ,. 42:1 1'1tt;111 I nn 'inte P ast I 'residvlen at IIlt5. 15. 1'('ZMlP 'slu/rt imliti 1. at 11.8:317. II). BloodA %. Amvriuf MOltIlll ' ?'/i., 11p100, 241 PlIa. 24 2. 11)7 A. 7:18. 17. Ibide. 15. ]I'. I init. artl. 1. � 27. 21 . Blli/ v..1i'lo 1* su/on, 2 Whart . ;at 5:18-5391. 22. .Sil/ehi t.. im/ms~, :1S Pa. 3804 ( 186 I 2:1. Idl. at 1l 214). Sit' "Lvgal Effvvt o~f P'hysical I 'hangi's ill tIll' Liai'at iof fiift 27. l'/i /ll'/Ilii4I 1)I in - ( ', toi (l i i# e -t 4/f/It, 2 8. lI Pi. 2 25, 1: 3(1 A. 4!141I 112 5. 28S. l't''/I,Ml sitr/nec oilw 1. atfIl-AA11. 214. Ill, at ii-iii, 11-14-45. :11. Ili. at 11-4-4, 11-4-7. 3 1. :1 P1a. Stat. � 4)71.1111 el s1'I. :12. hIl. ~ WU4:. I Nl s'l/. :34. 11 ]';1. Stjlit. � 8.114 C si'q. :15. 35S Pa. Sta1. � 61)11.1 el seq. :14. :12 I 'a Stat. � 50111 '' svel. :17. 315 l'a. Soil. � 4)111 '' scel. :11. 71 I'a Stlt. � 10417(4)) ('I svol. APRIL 1987 *1 The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XXV The Alabama Approach BY PETER H. F. GRABER Attorney at Law Greenbrae, Marin County, California URING WORLD WAR II, the Army Corps of Engi- 10-foot contour where the land surface elevation reaches 10 neers dredged a ship channel in Mobile Bay. The feet above mean sea leveL"' The zone includes Mobile Bay, dredge spoils were deposited onto the adjoining portions of Perdido Bay and Mississippi Sound, and some uplands owned by Sidney W. Gill. Later, the State of reaches of the Mobile River and several other tidal water- Alabama sued him, claiming title to the 55.91 acres of what ways, as well as Gulf of Mexico waters adjoining the Gulf the state's Supreme Court called "artificial, unnatural man- coast and such islands as Dauphin Island.' made accretion or reclamation."' Legally, lands within the coastal area may be classified as Which party was entitled to the silt and sand that had uplands, tidelands and submerged lands!0 been pumped from the bed of the bay but had become "high, solid, firm ground covered with grass, shrubs and trees"': A. Uplands the state, as owner of the land underlying the bay, or Mr. Gill, the private littoral owner? Most uplands adjoining Alabama's 504-mile estuarine and The Alabama Supreme Court in 1953 concluded that the Gulf shoreline" are in private hands, although the Federal "made-land" created by what the justices innovatively term- Government and the state own some key areas!' ed "streamlined accretion" should be the property of the private landowner. The court pointed out that the state's title B. Tidelands to lands beneath navigable waters is "a title to the bed as a bed and not to the individual grains of sand or lumps of The United States Supreme Court, in a landmark 1845 mud that constitute the land making up the bed.:' decision, Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan," held that title to lands 'Ibday, it is issues such as widespread erosion-instead of beneath tidal waters within Alabama passed to the state "streamlined accretion"-and public access to the waters of when it joined the Union in 1819!' Under an earlier decision, Mobile Bay and the Gulf of Mexico that are major concerns the court had held that the original states, as successors to in the coastal zone of the state nicknamed the Heart of Dixie the English crown, were the sovereign owners of tidelands The 1979 Alabama Coastal Area Management Program that had not previously been granted into private ownership addresses these and other contemporary issues.' by the pre-Revolutionary War colonial authorities!. In Pollard's Lessee, the court for the first time applied the TITLE TO LANDS legal concept known as the equal-footing doctrine" to hold WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE that subsequently admitted states enjoy the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction over lands beneath navigable Under the Alabama Coastal Area Act of 1976,5 the state's waters-such as the tide-flowed land involved in that coastal zone embraces lands and waters" within two counties' case"-as do the original states!. lying between the outer limit of the United States' territorial A century after Pollard's Lessee was decided, an sea and an inland boundary described as "the continuous interesting lawsuit focused on Pinto Island, originally a marsh island, which is located on the east side of the Mobile This is the 25th in a series of articles presenting a capsule ver- River where its waters empty into Mobile Bay." In a 1949 sion of the contemporary law of the coast for non-attorneys. The opinion, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found article briefly summarizes certain aspects of the constitutional, that "nearly, if not quite, all of the land sought to be con- statutory and case law of the State of Alabama concerning the coastal zone, with emphasis on the state's rules of law for tidal boun- demned [by the Federal Government] is not true fast land dary determination. Space limitations preclude an in-depth analysis but is land made by filling submerged land, that is land sub- of many of these topics or any discussion of related matters. The ject to tidal flow; and that if any of it at the time of the tak- views expressed in this and the other articles in the series do not ing was natural fast land, it was only a small part."2' The necessarily reflect those of the author's former employer, the Office of the Attorney General. State of California, or any other agency of the State of California. () 1988 by Peter H. F. C raber. The author the subject portion of the island were so shallow as to be non- also asserts copyright protection for the first 24 articles in the series navigable, they nevertheless belonged to the State of 12 SHORE AND BEACH Alabama because they were part of Mobile Bay, a navigable . ... If [the dredgingj had been done by slow, gradual body of water."' and imperceptible additions to the shore line, this An 1867 state legislative grant of tidelands to the City could be called 'accretion.' Without doubt under the of Mobile was upheld by both the Alabama and United common law the legal title of such accretion would States Supreme Courts.22 The nation's highest tribunal vest in the riparian owner. It is obvious that we do pointed out that private upland ownership extends only to not have in the case of bar an accretion by any slow the high-water mark under state law." or imperceptible processes. It has been suggested that the speeded up, artificial accretion, such as we have C. Submerged Lands in the present case, could well be called 'streamlined Alabama has dominion and control of submerged lands accretion,' or perhaps a reclamation. extending 3 geographic miles Gulfward from its coast under "It seems ... that the Alabama cases ... indicate the Submerged Lands Act passed by Congress in 1952." that where there is what we have termed a streamlined However, a state claim to lands beyond the 3-mile limit was accretion, ... title to such made-land is conferred upon turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1960.21 the upland owner, subject only to the paramount rights of the United States and the State in aid of DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES navigation.... IT]he title to the bed or bottom beneath navigable waters is in the state, but this is A. Upland/Tideland Boundary a title to the bed as a bed and not to the individual As in most coastal states, the "ordinary" or "usual" high- grains of sand or lumps of mud that constitute the water mark demarcates the legal boundary between private land making up the bed. Consequently there is no ti- property and the adjoining state-owned tidelands in Ala- tle inherent in a gallon of fluid mud, silt or clay that bama." The Legislature and the state's appellate courts do comes from the bottom and flows through the pipes not appear to have expressly defined this common-law boun- of an hydraulic dredge to its final resting place in the dary with any more precision. new land that it makes. The state still owns the title However, a recent case refers to the "mean high tide to the bed beneath the navigable waters, but the line"'2' suggesting that Alabama may follow the federal rule made-land being added to the property of the riparian of averaging all the high waters over a 19-year cycle in deter- or littoral owner becomes his property:'34 mining the tidal datum to be used in locating the ordinary In 1979, in Reid v. State," the Alabama Supreme Court high-water mark on the ground.?' applied both the Gill decision's rule and the U.S. Fifth Cir- cuit Court's Pinto Island opinion to affirm a trial court judg- B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Loca tion of th e Shoreline ment that the state was entitled to certain artificially accreted land. Under the facts of the case, the trial court In Alabama, it has long been established that littoral had held that title to the manmade land was divided landowners are entitled to additions formed by natural between the state and two private landowners. Two other accretion to their property.' A more difficult question faced private owners of adjoining property appealed arguing that the state Supreme Court in the previously mentioned 1953 the trial court had erred. case, State v. Gill:'" ownership of 55.91 acres of artificially The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, saying that accreted land that had formed because of the Federal the Circuit Court's statement of Alabama law in the Pinto Government's World War II dredging operations. Island litigation was controlling." Thus, in the unusual fac- The Army Corps of Engineers had pumped silt and sand tual context of the Reid case, two private upland owners from the bed of Mobile Bay and placed it along and adja- gained the benefit of artificial accretion, while the state cent to the shore of Sidney W. Gill's littoral property; the instead of two other private landowners obtained title to Corps had neither obtained his permission nor compensated adjacent manmade land. him for the resulting manmade change in the shoreline." Erosion has become a serious concern in Alabama "More In deciding that, as between the state and the private than 90 percent of Alabama's Gulf shoreline is eroding, and landowner of the adjoining upland property, the new "made- 33 percent of the bay-estuary shoreline is eroding:' accord- land" should belong to the littoral or riparian owner," the ing to the state's 1979 Coastal Area Management Program Alabama court applied state rather than federal law. The document.3 tribunal said that "the authorities in this state are decisive of the question ... and appear to demonstrate the right of ALABAMA'S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE riparian for littorall owners to artificial accretion increas- ing the land area by building out from it."" The public trust doctrine-the common-law concept that The court coined the term "streamlined accretion" in the public has the right to use tide and submerged lands discussing its rationale for awarding the accretion to the irrespective of who owns them-does not appear to have upland owner: been clearly defined in decisions by Alabama's appellate APRIL 1988 13 courts."5 The courts, however. have referred to such public In the previously mentioned 1949 federal case involving rights in tidal waters as navigation and fishing's Pinto Island, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied As mentioned earlier, the state Supreme Court, in a 1900 Alabama law to hold that this private right of access is decision, upheld an 1867 state legislative grant to the City merely a "way of necessity" to reach navigable waters, and of Mobile of a portion of the shore of the Mobile River, a that while the upland owners might be able to place fill tidal waterway, below the high-water mark.," The tribunal along the shore to enhance such access, that right could affirmed a judgment in favor of the city and against a party not ripen to a full fee title against the state and its grant~ee-10 claiming under a patent issued by the United States in 1836, Under Alabama's common law, private landowners of pro- many years after Alabama had joined the Union."2 perty abutting navigable waters have a right to build Responding to an argument that the state could not gr-ant wharves, piers, docks or piles, subject to governmental rules the property to the city, thereby divesting itself of the trust and regulations for the protection of the public.51 A statute, under which such shoreland was held, the court sa~id . originally enacted in 1915, codifies such rights."2 Another [Thi] grnt.. wasmadefor he prpos of statutory provision, designed "to encourage the building making it effective for the public good..... It cannot of bridges, causeways and other development work and relief be doubted that the State may convey the fee [title) work:' authorizes in such shore, subject, of course, to the paramount "the owner of aIny lands .. . abutting on tidelands, the rights of the United States respecting navigation, and title to which or control of which may now or hereafter particularly so when the conveyance is in furtherance be vested in the state .. . , which shall not have been of the public intereSts."'2 improved by or under valid public authority and shall One legal writer opined in 1959 that this language in the not be otherwise devoted to public use,... to acquire Mobile opinion would be limited to the facts of the case," ' such tidelands and to fill, reclaim or otherwise and that Alabama's public trust doctrine "would not be improve same and to fill in, reclaim or otherwise applied to conveyances to individuals, the only restriction improve the abutting submerged land and to own, use in such instances being a requirement that the land not be mortgage and convey the lands so reclaimed, filled or put to a use inconsistent with the public rights."" improved, and any improvements thereon,......53 PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS Owners of land fronting on "rivers, bayous, lagoons,.... bays, sounds and inlets" where oysters may be grown have Public access to Mobile Bay, the Gulf of Mexico and other a qualified statutory "right to plant and gather [oysters] tidal waters within Alabama's coastal zone is provided by in front of their land to the distance of 600 yards from the a total of 10,963 acres of publicly owned or maintained shore measured from the average low water mark. ..:1 h recreation areas, including state, county and municipal law provides that -[n~o riparian right shall vest in any per- parks and boat-launching ramps, according to the state's son to any part of the natural and public refs~... land] the 1979 Coastal Area Management Program document."~ department of conservation and natural resources shall have Under case law, members of the general public have the authority to regulate the time, manner, means or place or right of passage to navigable waters by public roads leading places for planting oysters or oyster shells."55 to such waters."1 There have been legislative efforts to improve access to LEASING AND REGULATION OF the shore in South Mobile County, especially on Dauphin Island." The Coastal Area Management Program document COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND WATERS states: "Future efforts should be aimed at providing ade- quate recreational opportunities and beach access, while A. Leasing protec ting the integrity of the coastal resources and rights of private property owners: 41 A law enacted in 1956 authorizes the state to lease cer- tain tide-flowed lands for mineral exploration and develop- PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS ment. The law provides in part: Apart from any right of access that the general public "The commissioner of conservation and natural may have, the littoral and riparian owners of private pro- resources,.... is ... authorized to lease any lands ... perty adjoining tidal waters in Alabama enjoy their own under any navigable waters, bays, estuaries, lagoons, individual rights of access to reach the navigable portion bayous -... and the shores along any navigable waters of those waters. The state's highest court pointed out that to high tide mark and submerged lands in the Gulf such landowners, by immemorial usage and custom, have of Mexico within the historic seaward boundary to such a private right of access; this right, however, is sub- this state, which is hereby declared to extend seaward ject to the Federal Government's paramount rights under six leagues from the land bordering the gulf, for the the U.S. Constitution and the general public's rights of exploration, development and production of oil, gas navigation." and other mieas..... 5 14 SHORE AND BEACH The Alabama Supreme Court in 1961 upheld a state 5. 19716 Ala. Acts 534; codified at Ala. Code �� 9-7-10 to 9-7-20 lessee's rights in state-owned land beneath shallow waters (1987 repl. vol.). of Mobile Bay, and ruled that the lessee was not interfer- 6. Alabama's coastal area has some 400,000 acres of bay and estuarine waters and 121,000 acres of wetlands. ACAMP, ing with the access rights of owners of bayshore property stpri note 4, at 55. byS filling in the leased landA7' 7. Baldwin and Mobile Counties, which consist of lands along Under a statutory scheme that originated in the late 19th the east and west shores of Mobile Bay, respectively, are the century, the state leases bottomlands for oyster cultivation. only two counties within the coastal area. ACAM P, supra note One law empowers the commissioner of conservation and 4, at 63-65. natural resources to lease "for the purpose of oyster culture, 8. Id. at 63. any bottom of the waters of the state in a natural oyster 9. Id. at 64-65. 10. This classification is used for convenience and consistency with other articles in this series. There is some semantic confusion, however, because the courts may use the term submerged lands B. Regulatory Functions to refer to lands between the lines of mean high and mean low water, or what this series defines as tidelands. For example, The Alabama Coastal Area Act of 197659 provides the see United States v. Turner, 175 F.2d 644, 645-646 (5th Cir., 1949). cert. denied 338 U.S. 851 (1950), rev'g United States statutory framework within which the state's coastal zone v. Property on Pinto Island, 74 F. Supp. 92 (D.C. Ala. 1947). is managed. Under that act, the state Coastal Area Board In this case, which is discussed in the text accompanying notes (CAB) is the principal agency responsible for management 19-21 infra, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refer- in the zone." In implementing the Alabama Coastal Area red to lands "below mean high tide" as "submerged land" when Management Program developed by CAB, the state Depart- such lands appear to have been extremely shallow tidelands. ment of Environmental Management, created in 1982, has . ACAMP, supra note 4. at 36. 12. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, federally owned and promulgated rules and regulations. " leased lands are excluded from the various states' coastal As to uses within the coastal area regulated by other state zones. 16 U.S.C. � 1453(a). agencies,"' the Coastal Area Act of 1976 provides: 13. 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 223. 228-230 (1845). 14. Alabama was admitted to the Union on Dec. 14, 1819. Act of ':.. The department shall review the permitting Admission, 3 Stat. 492. activities of persons.. . in order to insure consistency 15. Martin v. Waddell 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367, 408 (1842). with the... management program. No agency can 16. For a brief discussion of the equal-footing doctrine, see Shore issue a permit for any activity in the coastal area that and Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4. October 1980, pp. 15-16. the department ... finds to be inconsistent with 17. The land was located within the City of Mobile. Plaintiffs the ... management program"' asserted title under an 1836 patent from the United States. Defendants, who claimed under a grant from Spain before the With regard to so-called "nonregulated uses"-that is, United States acquired the area, introduced evidence that the uses having a "direct and significant impact" on the coastal disputed property had been covered by" 'water of the Mobile river at common high tide' " between 1819 and 1823. The jury area, but which do not require a permit from another state was instructed that if "'they believed the premises ... were agency-an application must be made for a CAB permit. below usual high-water mark, at the time Alabama was Among such uses: construction on beaches and dunes and admitted into the union [in 18191, then ... the 11836 federal] in the 100-year floodplain." patent ... could give the plaintiffs no title, whether the waters had receded by the labour of man only, or by alluvion; ... ' " Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, supra, 44 U.S. {3 How.) at 220. The jury found for defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed on a writ of error from the Alabama Supreme Court. Id at The author is grateful to Geary Allen, environmental 219-220, 230. investigator, Office of the Attorney General, State of 18. The U.S. Supreme Court summarized its conclusions as follows: Alabama, and to Jamnes McGrath, coastal engineer, Califor- "First, The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United nia Coastal Commission, for providing some of the source States, but were reserved to the states respectively. Secondly, material cited in this article. The new states have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdic- tion over the subject as the original states. Thirdly, The right REFERENCES of the United States to the public lands, and the power of Con- gress to make all needful rules and regulations for the sale and 1. State v. Gill 259 Ala. 177, 66 So.2d 141 (1953). disposition thereof, conferred no power to grant to the plain- 2. Id at 179, 66 So.2d at 142. tiffs the land in controversy in this case." Id. at 230. 3. Id at 183, 66 So.2d at 145. For a brief discussion of this case, 19. United States v. Property on Pinto Island, supra, 74 F. Supp. see "Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location of the 92, 94. rev'd sub. nom. United States v. Turner, supra, 175 F.2d Shoreline" under "Determination of Tidal Boundaries," infra 644, cert. denied 338 U.S. 851. This was a condemnation action 4. The Alabama Coastal Area Management Program and Final begun by the United States against Horace Turner in 1941, Environmental Impact Statement (1979) [hereinafter cited as at which time the part of the island being condemned was "all ACAMP) 36,38-39, 41-42, 137,150, 193-220. The program was reclaimed land of an area nearly twice that of the whole island prepared under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of when granted by the government in 1859." United States v. 1972. as amended. 16 U.S.C. � 1451 et seq., and approved by Property on Pinto Island, supra, 74 F. Supp. at 94. the Federal Government on Sept. 25. 1979. 20. United States v. Turner, supra, 175 F.2d at 646. APRIL 1988 15 21. Id at 647-649. 43. The statutory grant, approved in 1867. provided that the 22. Mobile 7'ansp. Ca v. City of Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 30 So. 645 granted land be held for the public good. 1866 Ala. Acts 278 (1900), affd, 187 U.S. 479 (1903). See also Mobile 73-ansp. Ca at p. 463. v. City of Mobile, 153 Ala. 409, 44 Sa 976 11907). 44. Rogers, "Title to Subaqueous Lands in Alabama:' 11 Ala L. 23. 187 U.S. at 486. The state's ownership of lands lying under Rev. 273, 285 (1959). This article states: Mobile Bay and such tidal waterways as the Mobile River is "The trust concept imposed by the court has had effects well-established under Alabama law. See, e.g., City of Mobile beyond that of requiring the grantee to use the land in a manner v. Eslaua, 9 Port. 577 (1839). not inconsistent with the public rights. For example. in the 24. 67 Stat. 29; codified at 43 U.S.C. � 1301 et seq. Mobile Transportation Ca case, the court held that the grant 25. United States v. Louisiana 364 US. 502, 503-504 (final decree), was in trust for the furtherance of the public interest and was 363 U.S. 1, 82, 121 (opinion) (1960). therefore not subject to the city's debts ... [T]he language of Interestingly, the Alabama Constitution of 1875, like the the Alabama Power Ca case [State v. Alabama Power Ca, supr, 1819 Act of Admission, 3 Stat. 492, provided that the state 176 Ala 620, 58 So 462 could be construed as requiring a trust boundaries extend "to the Gulf of Mexico land] thence in all cases. If the concept was carried to the point of impress- eastwardly, including all islands within six leagues of the ing such requirements on grants to individuals, it could become shore,. .. " Ala Const. of 1875, art. II. � 1. In English-speaking of major import with respect to oil and gas leases. However, countries, a league is roughly three miles; Alabama thus defined should the question arise, it is the opinion of this writer that its boundaries as extending into the Gulf about 18 miles. The the rule of the Mobile Mansportation Ca case would be held same provision is in the state's 1901 Constitution. Ala. Const. a result of the wording of the specific grant, and it would not of 1901, art. ii, � 37. be applied to conveyances to individuals, the only restriction An Alabama statute. which was enacted in 1956-before the in such instances being a requirement that the land not be put U.S Supreme Court rejected the state's claim to submerged to a use inconsistent with the public rights. The Attorney lands beyond the 3-geographical-mile limit-but which has not General of Alabama has stated this to be the case in an been repealed, provides in part that "the historic seaward boun- dary of this state... is hereby declared to extend seaward six proposed oi and gas lease of the be d of th e Alabama River. leagues from the land bordering the gulf." Ala. Code � 9-17-62 I d. at 285 (footnotes omitted). 26.(1987 rMobie pansy City ofl. vol.). supra, 128 Ala at 348, 45. ACAMP, supra note 4, at 36. The document points out that 26. Mobile U.ansp. Ca 48. City of Mobile, supra, 128 Ala. at 348, additional "[a]ccess to coastal recreational opportunities affad 187 U.S. at 486. 27. Reid v. State, 373 So, 2d 18071 1074. (Emphasis addedU. In is... provided by numerous fish camps, privately operated boat 27. Reid v. State 373 Si. 2d 1071, 1074. (Emphasis added). In ramps and marinas"' which "often provide access to areas addition, the federal appellate court that handed down the deci- are sion involving Pinto Island, discussed in "Tidelands" under where no public facilities are available * Ibid in the Coastal Zone" supr, mentioned "mean 46. Howard a. State, 23 Ala App. 228, 124 So. 912 (1929). "Title to Lands in the Coastal Zone;' supra, mentioned "mean 47. ACAMP. supra note 4, at 36. high tide," presumably referring to the tidal. datum of mean high water. United States u Turner, supra 175 F.2d at 645. But 48. Ibid. the lower court, discussing the evidence at the trial, used the 49. McDonneU a Mw-nan Shipbuilding Corp., 210 Ala 611,98 So. nonscientific legal term "ordinary high tide." United States v 887 (1924). Property on Pinto Island, supra 74 F. Supp. at 99. 50. United States v. Turner, supra, 175 F.2d at 647. 28. This is the principle enunciated in Borax, Ltd v. City of Los 51. McDonnell 9 Murnan Shipbuilding Corp, supr. 210 Ala 611. Angeles, 296 U.S. 10(1935). See Shore and Beach, Vol. 48, No. 98 S 887. 4 October 1980. pp. 17-18, and Vol. 49, Na 2. April 1981, pp. 52. Ala. Code � 33-7-50 (1987 repl vol) provides in part' "The owner 4. Getob 21980, pp. 17-18, and Vol. 49, No,-22, April 1981, pp. of riparian lands upon navigable waters ... may install in front 21-22. 29. Pippen a. Carpenter, 208 Ala. 1, 93 So. 878 (1922). of their [sic] respective riparian lands wharves, docks, 30. 259 Ala. 177. 66 So2d 141. See brief discussion supra in text warehouses, sheds, tipples, chutes, elevators, conveyors and the accompanying notes 1-3. It is noteworthy that the Gill case like for receiving, discharging, storing. protecting. transferring. was decided by the state Supreme Court after the U.S. Court loading and unloading freight and commodities of commerce of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, applying Alabama state law, to and from vessels and carriers, and may use their sicl riparian had made its ruling in the previously discussed United States lands in connection therewith and dredge out and deepen the a 7Turner, supra, 175 F.2d 644. See brief discussion of that case approaches thereto and may charge and collect reasonable tolls and the earlier trial court opinion in the same suit supra in for the use thereof...." text accompanying notes 19-21. Another state law qualifies this right. however, by providing 31. 259 Ala. at 180, 66 So.2d at 142. that such structures must not "unreasonably obstruct naviga- 32. Id at 180, 182, 66 So.2d at 142, 144-145. tion, or the freedom of the use of the navigable waters... for 33. Id at 180. 66 Soa2d at 142. commerce and navigation, or for harbor purposes; ...' Id at 34. Id at 183. 66 So.2d at 145. � 33-7-51 (1987 repl. vol.). 35. 373 Sao2d 1071. 53. Id at � 33-7-53 (1987 repl. vol.). The authorization is subject 36. Id at 1074. to various qualifications, including the need to obtain federal 37. ACAMP, supra note 4, at 38. and state authorities' approval of the plans for such im- 38. For a brief discussion of the public trust doctrine, which has provements before beginning construction. antecedents in ancient Roman law, see Shore and Beach, Vol. The statute further provides in part: "If such improvement 48, Na 4. October 1980, pp. 18-19. constructed or proposed shall not consist of a bridge, bridge- 39. See, e.g., State v. Alabama Power Ca, 176 Ala. 620, 625, 626, head, road or causeway, approach or related improvement 58 So 462, 463 (1912). included within this section, title shall not pass to the riparian 40. Mobile 7'ansp. Ca v. City of Mobile, supra, 128 Ala. 335, 30 owner... unless and until the riparian owner shall have So. 645. obtained the approval of the county commission ... and of the 41. Id at 348, 30 So. at 647. director of the state docks department and the government of 42. Id at 349. 30 So. at 648. Alabama... :' Ibid 18 SHORE AND BEACH 54. Ala. C(odeE- 9-12-22 ( 987 repl. vol.). The validity of such an the owners of land fronting on such waters where oysters may enactment was upheld in State Is Ilurrub. 95 Ala. 176, 10 So. be gnrwn have the right to create and have created, by artificial 752 (1892). means....culture grounds for the growth of oysters.. :' Id. 55. Ala. Codf � 9-12-22 (1987 repl. vol.). For the statutory defini- at � 9-12-21 (1987 repl. vol.). tion of a "natural oyster reef:' see id at � 9-12-21 (1987 repl. See text accompanying note 55 supra as to a companion vol.). a portion of which is quoted in note 58 infra. "Natural statute under which "the owners of the land fronting on Icer- public oyster reefs in Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound cover tain watersl where oysters may be grown shall have the right about 3,064 acres." ACAMIP supra note 4, at 138. to plant and gather same in the waters in front of their land..:' 56. Ala. Code � 9-17-62 (1987 repl. vol.). Id. at � 9-12-22 (1987 repl. vol.). 57. State ex re (Gallion u ArgirQ 273 Ala. 44, 134 Sa2d 209 (1961). 59. 1976 Ala. Acts 534; codified at Ala. Code �� 9-7-10 to 9-7-20 58. Ala. Code � 9-12-24. (1987 repl. vol.). (1987 repl. vol.). Another section in the same article of the code defines 60. ACAMt .supra note4. at 1, 15, 67-68; Ala. Code � 9-7-14(1987 "natural oyster reef" as "not less than one acre in continuous repl. vol.). area of any bottoms of any bay, sound, bayou, reef, inlet or any 61. Id. at � 9-7-16 (1987 repl. vol.). other body of salt or brackish water on which oysters grow 62. The Alabama Coastal Area Management Program document naturally, or have grown naturally, in quantity sufficient to war - lists more than 30 existing state laws administered by other rant fishing for them with hand tongs as a means of a livelihood agencies that affect the coastal zone. ACAMP, supra note 4, within a period of five years... :'The statute provides that "in at 171-188. no case shall an oyster bed be declared or defined to be a natural 63. Id. at � 9-7-20 (1987 repl. vol.). oyster reef when such bed is located within the limits where 64. Ibid. U.S. Supreme Court Rules That States May Assert Public Trust Interest in Lands Beneath Nonnavigable Tidal Waters BY PEn'EH H.F. GRABER. Attorney at Law, Greenbrae, Marin County, California States may assert public trust rights in lands underlying waters if the [English] common law does not support their position, subse- subject to the influence of the tide, even though they are not quent cases from this Court developing the American public trust navigable, as a result of an important ruling by the United States doctrine make it clear that navigability-and not tidal influence- Supreme Court on February 23, 1988. The decision was handed has become the sine qua non of thepublic trustinterest in tidelands down in a case arising in Mississippi. but is expected to have an in this country." 56 LW. at 4146. The majority pointed out that 1877 impact in many other coastal states. and 1892 decisions of the court had indicated that it was "recognized Justice Byron White, speaking for the majority, held that when as the 'settled law of this country' that the lands under navigable Mississippi joined the Union in 1817, it took title to lands beneath freshwater lakes and rivers were within the public trust given the waters that were influenced by the tide but were not navigable-in- new States upon their entry into the Union... :' 56 L.W. at 4146. fact. He was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Black- In a footnote, the majority said that Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., mun, Brennan and Marshall. Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices 153 U.S. 273 (1894), "appears to be the only previous case from this Scalia and Stevens, dissented. Justice Kennedy, the court's newest Court concerning lands beneath non-navigable, tidal waters" In that member, did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case, according to the majority, the court had "held the lands to be case. within the public trust,.. .lthusl impliedly [rejecting] the argument In Phillips Petroleum Ca v. Mississippi (No. 86-870), 56 L.. ... that navigability-in-fact determined the scope of public trust 4143, the nation's highest tribunal affirmed the ruling of the Mis- tidelands:' 56 L.W. at 4146 n.8. sissippi Supreme Court in Cinque Barnbini Partnership v. State, 491 Within theunusual context of this Mississippipropertycontroversy, So.2d 508, 510 (1986), that by virtue of becoming a state, Mississippi the majority opinion therefore purports to adhere to the English had acquired "fee simple title to all lands naturally subject to tidal common law ebb-and-flow rule instead of seeking "to fashion anew influence, inland to today's mean high water mark ......" By affirm- test to govern thl e instead of seeking "to fashion a new ing the state court's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the test to govern the limits of public trust tidelands 56 L at 4147. argument that the state had acquired title only to lands under On the other hand, the dissenting opinion stated that earlier navigable waters. decisions had emphasized navigability as the basis for the public The controversy centered around 42 acres of land several miles trust doctrine Justice O'Connor wrote "Our precedents explain that north of the Gulf of Mexico. The land underlies a branch of Bayou the public trust extends to navigable waterways because its funda- Creek and 11 small drainage streams in southwestern Mississippi. mental purpose is to preserve them for common use for transporta- The waters over the property in question are influenced by the tide, tion." 56 L.W at 4148. "because they are adjacent and tributary to the Jourdan River, a The dissent argued that the public trust easement should be navigable stream flowing into the Gulf lof Mexico]. The Jourdan, in analogized to the federal admiralty jurisdiction. It also pointed out the area involved here, is affected by the ebb and flow of the tide" 56 that by passing the Submerged Lands Act in 1953, "Congress also LW. at 4144. However, the waters over such land are not navigable. has evidenced its belief that the States' public trusts are limited to Phillips Petroleum Co. and Cinque Bambini Partnership, which lands underlying navigable waters:' 56 L.W. at 4149. were the petitioners to the U.S. Supreme Court, traced their title to In a statement that may provide a hint of things to come in other the property in dispute to prestatehood Spanish land grants. The states, the minority noted that "Mississippi showed no interest in State of Mississippi, which had issued oil and gas leases to this the disputed land:' which it leases for oil and gas purposes, "from property, asserted that it had acquired title under the equal-footing the time it became a State until the 1970s" 56 L.W at 4149. doctrine and "held in public trust all land lying under any waters As the dissent noted, the majority opinion in the Phillips Petro- influenced by the tide. whether navigable or not.' 56 L.W. at 4144. leum case would seem to encourage other states to act as New Jersey The majority opinion rejected petitioners' argument that the orig- has in aggressively asserting public trust rights in land underlying inal states had not claimed title to nonnavigable tidal waters, point- nonnavigable tidal waters and in land that has been under tidal waters ing out that under an 1894 U.S. Supreme Court decision, "it has at any time since the Revolution. It remains to be seen how many been long-established that the individual States have the authority states will try to apply the Supreme Court's latest decision in the to define the limits of the lands held in public trust and to recognize murky area of tidelands by asserting ownership and public trust private rights in such lands as they see fit." 56 L.W. at 4145. rights in land generally believed for many years to be privately held. In addition, the majority rejected petitioners' argument that "even �1988 by Peter H.F. Graber APRIL 1988 17 The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell* Part XXVI: The Rhode Island Approach BY PETER H.F. GRABER Attorney at Law Greenbrae, Marin County, California T'S UNUSUAL when someone is arrested for trying Lands within the coastal zone may be divided into to clean up a beach, rather than littering it, but uplands, tidelands and submerged lands.6 that is what happened to six people in Rhode Is- land in the late 1970s. Their arrest on charges of A. Uplands trespassing on a beachfront owner's private property triggered a state constitutional dispute. In Rhode Island, as in other coastal states, private The controversy arose because the state Constitution parties have title to most of the uplands immediately guarantees citizens the same "privileges of the shore" adjoining the shoreline. that had been assured under Rhode Island's colonial charter.' To decide whether the defendants were tres- B. Tidelands passing, the state Supreme Court had to determine how the legal boundary between public tidelands and Colonial authorities in Rhode Island, unlike their private uplands should be defined and located. counterparts in neighboring Massachussetts, did not In 1982 the Ocean State's highest court agreed with make any blanket grant of tide-flowed lands to the the private landowner, holding that the technically owners of the adjacent uplands.- Consequently, upon defined mean high-tide line constituted the boundary. the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Rhode But the court dismissed the criminal charges on due Island was, in general, vested with title to the tide- process grounds after observing that its earlier deci- lands within its borders.' This sovereign title was upheld sions on the boundary question had been unclear. in a series of early state Supreme Court decisions. The decision is one of the significant recent legal developments affecting the 419-mile coastline of the C. Submerged Lands smallest state in the Union:' The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program, which provides the The Submerged Lands Act of 195310 confirmed Rhode framework for regulation of the coast, was approved Island's title to submerged lands seaward to 3 geo- by the Federal Government in 1977.4 graphical miles from its shoreline along Long Island and Block Island Sounds and the Atlantic Ocean. TITLE TO LANDS However, in 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE claim of Rhode Island and other East Coast states to the area beyond the 3-mile limit." Under Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Program, the state's coastal zone includes Narrangansett DETERMINATION OF TIDAL BOUNDARIES Bay and extends to the seaward limit of its territorial sea; in general, it embraces lands within a 200-foot A. Upland/Tideland Boundary strip landward of such "shoreline features" as coastal beaches and bluffs.5 In a 1912 decision, the Rhode Island Supreme Court used the words "ordinary high-water mark" - a legal 'This is the 26th in a series of articles presenting a capsule version term that originated at common law in England - to of the contemporary law of the coast for non-attorneys. The article describe the boundary between privately owned up- briefly summarizes certain aspects of the constitutional, statutory and case law of the State of Rhode Island concerning the coastal lands and the state's tidelands.'2 Seventy years later, zone. Space limitations preclude an in-depth analysis of many of in 1982, the court defined the boundary more specifi- these topics or any discussion of related matters. The views cally in State v. Ibbison.'3 expressed in this and the other articles in the series do not Interestingly, the occasion for clarifying the boundary necessarily reflect those of the author's former employer, the Office of the Attorney General. State of California. or any other agency of definition arose in a criminal case in which the defen- the State of California. , 1989 by Peter H.F. Graber. The author dants were charged with criminal trespass under a also asserts copyright protection for the first 25 articles in this municipal code prohibiting a person from knowingly series. 20 SHORE AND BEACH enterling upon the land ol' another without having been shoreline was to bI computed as a mean or as an ab- request(d or invited to (lo so by the landowner or slhlltt( high-wantr m;ark."' occup:lnt. The detfenda;nt.; h;ld been engaged in a beach Adnonished the court: "In the future, any municipal- cleanup ope ration in Wessterly, a community along Block ity that intends to impose criminal penalties for tres- Island Sound near the Connecticut border. They were pass on waterfront propert-ly alxne the mean-high-tide stopped bry Wilfred Kay, a littoral property owner, and line must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the a policeman. As the court summarized the facts: defendant knew the location of the boundary line and "Kay, believing his private property extended to intentionally trespassed across it.T:' the nwan.lhigh -wat/er line, had staked out that line previously. He informed defendants that they were not permitted to cross the landward side of it. The B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the defendants, on the other hand, believed that their right to traverse the shore extended to the high- Location of the Shorel r .This lie ws d e . Rhode Island's Supreme Court does not appear to water mark. This line was defined by defendants . . . as a visible line on the shore indicated by the have been confronted with a case calling for its deci- reach of an average high tide and further indicated sion on whether the upland/tideland boundary moves by drifts and seaweed along the shore. It has been with accretion and erosion. However, several decisions stipulated by the parties that defendants had crossed indicate that if such a case arose, the court would the mean-high-tide line but were below the high- follow the usual common-law rule under which littoral water mark at the time of their arrest. Also, at the owners are entitled to accreted lands but must assume time of the arrest, the mean-high-tide line was under the risk of losing title by erosion.24 water."4 The dispute in the Ibbison case raised a state consti- RHODE ISLAND'S tutional issue because the Rhode Island Constitution PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE provides that the people "shall continue to enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privi- The public trust doctrine - the concept that the public leges of the shore, to which they have heretofore been may use tidal waters irrespective of whether the entitled under the [colonial] charter and usages of this underlying lands are publicly or privately owned - state"" As the court phrased the legal issue: "To what has been recognized in the Rhode Island Constitution point does the shore extend on its landward bound- and in case law. A provision in the state Constitution, ary?""6 which was involved in the previously discussed Ibbi- In resolving that question, the state's highest tribu- son case, states that "Itlhe people shall continue to nal cited Rhode Island's common-law heritage" and enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1935 decision in the privileges of the shore, to which they have been the Borax case.' The state court said "the only permis- heretofore entitled under the [colonial] charter and sible action for us to take is to affix the boundary as usages of this state."25 was done at common law,"'9 which was construed in In 1941, in Jackvony v. Powel,26 the state Supreme Borax as the line of mean high tide. This means that Court ruled that the public's right to passage along the the boundary is located at the intersection of the datum shore, at least for certain purposes, is one of the of mean high water, as determined over a 19-year period, "privileges of the shore" protected by this constitutional with the shore. provision. The case arose when a beach commission of The Rhode Island court recognized that the mean the City of Newport stated its intention to erect a fence high-tide line "is not readily identifiable by the casual perpendicular to the shoreline along the boundary observer," but stated that the line 'represents the point between the city and the adjoining town. that can be determined scientifically with the greatest The commissioners stated that the purpose of the certainty."20 The court also said that its decision "best fence, which was planned to extend between the lines balances the interests between littoral owners and all of mean high and mean low tide, was" '[tlo keep non- people of the state."-' residents from using the [city's] beach for nothing and Although the Ibbison decision established the mean thus protect Newport taxpayers."'2' The Supreme Court high-tide line as the upland/tideland boundary, thereby said that the legislation under which the commission- recognizing the view of the littoral property owner ers planned to act, if valid, "could prevent any person involved in the case, the state Supreme Court affirmed . . . from passing along any part of the shore between the dismissals of the criminal charges on due process Euston's Beach and the line of mean low tide ... for grounds. The court said that "no man shall be held any purpose whatever, be it for fishing, bathing, boat- criminally responsible for conduct that he could not ing, getting seaweed or sand, or for exercise [of] any reasonably understand to be proscribed," and that there other purpose."2' After defining the right of passage had been a "lack of clarity in early decisions of this along the shore as one of the "privileges of the shore" court regarding whether the landward boundary of the protected by the state Constitution, the court held that APRIL 1989 21 the legislation violated the constitutional provisions from encroachientis. T'I'he rest is to be left to he filled and occupied by the liparian proprietors. Its PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS establishment is equivalent to a legislative declara- tion that navigation will not be straitened or ob- Although the Jackvony decision upheld the public structed by any such filling out."" passage along the shore, it did not address the ques- As with wharfing out, filling of tidal flats now must tion of access from the uplands to the sea. A legal be approved by the state's director of public works.`' scholar who analyzed that decision said the "It Ihe right of access would seem to be a logical corollary of the LEASLNG AND REGULATION right of passage," but that "historical evidence, which OF COASTAL ZONE LANDS AND) WATERS the Rhode Island courts have relied upon heavily in the past," indicates the contrary?.3 He argued that the A. Leasing public trust doctrine, used in conjunction with other legal concepts, such as dedication, prescription or custom, Lands beneath the state's coastal waters may be leased "could prove an effective tool in an effort to gain greater to applicants who have been granted aquaculture per- public access to the shoreline."' mits.43 Implied dedication of a beach to a town was upheld in a 1932 state Supreme Court decision.32 A private party claimed ownership under a chain of title dating B. Regulatory Functions back to 1849,33 but there was evidence that for many years, the town and nearby farmers had carted sand The Coastal Resources Management Council, created and gravel from the beach and the townspeople had in 1971, is the state entity primarily responsible for used the beach for hunting, fishing and bathing?4 The management of land use in and near coastal waters." court, observing that such use was open, notorious and Constitutionality of the statute establishing the coun- uninterrupted for a longer period than required to obtain cil was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 1981.45 title by adverse user, stated that this use raised a pre- In that portion of the coastal zone waterward of the sumption of dedication.35 mean high-water mark, the council has direct author- ity over all activities; landward of that line, it has PRIVATE LITTORAL RIGHTS authority over certain uses and activities if "there is a reasonable probability of conflict with [the council's] Private owners of uplands in Rhode Island have the program for resources management or damage to the common-law right of access to the adjoining tide and coastal environment."46 submerged lands.36 As a result, courts have upheld The council is empowered to issue or deny permits for their right to build wharves, subject to governmental dredging, filling or any other alteration of coastal wet- regulation assuring protection of the public right of lands, and to "[glrant licenses, permits and easements navigation. for the use of coastal resources which are held in trust For example, in a 1960 case,:I an oil refining com- by the state for all its citizens."'- pany obtained federal and state approval to build a Use of the lands and waters within Rhode Island's pier in Narragansett Bay. The state Supreme Court coastal zone is subject to various other regulatory rejected an argument that state officials' approval of programs. Not all of these have been upheld by the the proposed pier, under a state law,: was tantamount courts. In one case, for example, the state Supreme to the state's giving away the soil under the tidelands Court ruled that a local zoning ordinance designed to held in trust. The court said that because the authori- protect barrier beaches was so restrictive that it de- ties had determined that the proposed pier would not prived the landowner of all beneficial use of the prop- interfere with the public rights in the waters, the erty and thus anounted to an unconstitutional taking company could exercise its right to wharf out to obtain of private property.-" access to the sea. Historically, littoral owners in Rhode Island were ACKNOWLEDGMENTS allowed to extend their property waterward by filling the adjacent tide-flowed lands.)9 After the Harbor Line The author is grateful to Stefany L. Cooperman, special Act was passed in 1873, the state Supreme Court assistant attorney general, Department of Attorney Gen- recognized the right of the owners to fill out to the eral, State of Rhode Island, and to James McGrath, lines established under that law.� As the court put it: coastal engineer, California Coastal Commission, for "... A harbor line is in fact what it purports to be, providing some of the source material cited in this the line of a harbor. It marks the boundary of a article. certain part of the public waters which is reserved for a harbor. The part so reserved is to be protected 22 SHORE AND BEACH IREFEREN('ES whplt i, aninln. ii ineral and oilter natural re- s ,I.t11-s of 1'h11 s1; II I.l atl tod It, ;d11 I a I n ;lls necessary R' .I. ('onst. art . � 17. See infro notes 15 and 25 and ;and prolper 1) law ;to prlotectl I(el natural environment a~ceTyirivnhg xl-. of tli plXople) (f ItIlh state by providing for the preser- ' Sltot v. lihisilt, 4.11 A.2d 728 IR.. 19821. For a discus.sion vat ion, regeneration and restora;tion tor the natural (if this c(as',. s l, "ltlmdl'l'idcIland loundary." under -I)e- enivironnlit of the st;atv." R.I. Const. tart XXXVII, � termi;natiln of Tidal B1cno11daries," infir'. 1. Rhode l.alund C ousa l Resources AManagemrent Program ' 67 R.1. 218. 21 A.2d 554 (1941). Iherein cited a-s RI(RMIVI' 1 (1977). The original program .; ld. at 220, 21 A.2d at 555. document was alnended in June 1983. 2" Id. at 227, 21 A.2d at 558. 4 The program was prepared pursuant to the federal Constal 2:, Id. at 228-229, 21 A.2d at 558. In addition to the right of 7?1ne Management Acl of 1972, 16 U.S.C. � 1451 el seq. passage along the shore, the court referred to these public ' HItCR}MtP, supra~i note 3, at 20-21 rights in the tidelands as recognized under the common ' his classification is used for convenience and consistency law: "fishing from the shore, taking seaweed and drift- with other articles in this series. stuff therefrom, land] going therefrom into the sea for : For a brief discussion of the grants in Massachussetts bathing." Id. at 223, 21 A.2d at 556. under the colonial ordinance of 1647, sec Shore and a4, Nixon, Public Access to the Shoreline: The Rho(e, Island Beach. Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1982. pp. 13-14. An early Example, 4 Coastal Zone Management J. 65, 67 (19781. decision indicates that the Massachussetts rule applies to :' Id. at 68. The state Supreme Court recently upheld the por'tions of' Rhode Island's shore that were ceded from Coastal Resources Management Council's designation of a Massach; ussetts. Allen v.Allen 19 R.I. 114, 32 A. 166(1895). public right of way across private lands to state tidal waters. However, in a later case, Narrongansett Real Estate Co. v. Sartor v. Coastal Res. Mgt. Council. No. 86-106 (May 24, Mackrnzie, 34 R.I. 103, 82 A. 804 (1912)!, it was held that 1988). the Massachussetts ordinance was not applicable in Rhode :' Talbot v. Town of Little Compton, 52 R.I. 280, 160 A. 466 Island. 11932). FMAnrtin v. W5oaddell, 41 U.S. 116 Pet.) 367. 408 (1842). 3 The private claimant to the beach property also presented ' See, e.g., Walsh v. Hopkins, 22 R.I. 418 (1901); Allen v. evidence that a fence had been briefil erected in 1865, and Allhn, supra, 19 R.I. 115, 32 A. 166; Bailey v. Burges, 11 that she occasionally had cleaned up rubbish on the beach R.I. 330 (1876j. and used it for bathing. Id. 285, 160 A. at 468. " 67 Stat. 29; codified at 43 U.S.C. � 1301 et seq. 34 Id. at 285-286, 160 A. at 468. t] United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515, 517-518 (1975). :', Id. at 288, 160 A. at 469. The court said: i[Wlhere there ' NaVrragansett Real Estate Co. v. Mackenzie, supra, 34 R.I. is a dedication, express or implied, of common lands the 103, 112. 82 A. 804, 806. In other cases, the court referred municipality holds the title to the land in trust for the to the shore as 'land below high-water mark," Armour & inhabitants.' Ibid. Co. v. City of Newport, 43 R.I. 211, 213, 110 A. 804, 806 :"; Carr v. Carpenter, supra, 22 R.I. 528. (1920, and 'the space between high and low-water mark,'" 3 Nugent v. Vallone, 91 R.I. 145, 161 A.2d 802 (1960). Clark v. Peckham, 10 R.I. 35, 38 (1871). :" The law provides that plans for proposed wharves and '1 448 A.2d 728 (R.I. 1982). other structures in or over public tidewaters must be ap- " Id. at 729-730 (emphasis added). proved by the state director of public works. R.I. Gen. R.I. Const. art. I, � 17, as amended by art. XXXVII, �� 1- Laws � 46-6-2. The law, however, contains a proviso that 2. See note 25 infra. "nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair the 16 448 A.2d at 729 rights of any riparian proprietors to erect wharves author- '. Id. at 730. The court discussed Allen v. Allen, supra, 19 ized to be erected under any of the laws establishing harbor R.I. 114, 115, 32 A. 166, quoting that case as saying that lines within the state, or otherwise by the general assem- 'Itlhe State holds the legal fee of all lands below high bly.' water mark as at common law." "9 For a general discussion of harbor lines, see Nixon, Har- " For a discussion of Borax, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, see borlines, Underwater Lots and Development, 33 R.I. Bar J. Shore and Beach, Vol. 48, No. 4, October 1980, pp. 17-18, 8 (Oct. 1984). and Vol. 49, No. 2, April 1981, pp. 21-22. "' Engs v. Peckham. 11 R.I. 210 (1875). 19 448 A. 2d at 730. 4 Id. at 224. 20 Id. at 732. 42 R.I. Gen. Laws � 46-6-2. 21 Ibid. 43 Id., � 20-10-6. 22 448 A.2d at 733. 44 Id., � 46-23-1 et seq.; RICRMP, supra note 3 at 250-252. 23 Ibid. 4s" Milardo v. Coastal Res. Mgt. Council, 434 A.2d 266 (R.I. 24 In Carr v. Carpenter, 22 R.I. 528, 530-531, 46 A. 805, 806 1981). See also Santini v. Lyons, 448 A.2d 124 (R.I. 1982). (1901), the Rhode Island court cited a New York case, 6 R.I. Gen. Laws � 46-23-6. Emans v. Turnbull. 2 Johns. 313 (1807), which in turn had ' Ibid. relied on early English legal authorities as recognizing the 4"Annicelli v. Town of South Kingstouwn, 463 A.2d 133 (R.I. private owners' right to gradual, imperceptible accretion. 1983). In this case, an amendment to the zoning ordinance 25 R.I. Const. art. I, � 17. The Constitution was originally designated segments of the town's shoreline 'High Flood ratified in 1843. The state's responsibility to protect the Danger" districts. The classification effectively precluded public interest was set forth in the following language added the landowner in question from building a single-family to the Constitution in 1970: dwelling in an area in which there were already 30 such "... and Ithe peoplel shall be secure in their rights structures. to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the state with due regard for the preservation of their value; and it shall be the duty of the general assem- bly to provide for the conservation of the air, land, APRIL 1989 23