The Law of the Coast in a Clamshell ###NEWPAGE n="1" ### 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 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 ###NEWPAGE n="2" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="3" ### 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 TIDAL 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 ###NEWPAGE n="4" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="5" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="6" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="7" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="8" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="9" ### 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- Governmlent 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 ###NEWPAGE n="10" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="11" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="12" ### I St M* 04kb. .1 42 1 et seq. A,. A. kat. iW3. JO §1C.*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 ###NEWPAGE n="13" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="14" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="15" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="16" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="17" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="18" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="19" ### 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 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 '. .. . mi 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 .#ptwnftn7 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 ............ Ą,,aqt, lur . . . ..dhn ,....!....!thttt.......d.......l'rtlatd Florida's title to the submerged lands within a 3- mnlltol 7htt'tu tltpe1%ttltht, lndlh˘ tblhtrtl, t't nfiht ˘tt , lm tetlJ}'lOdglvit, |fllhlenflilttRnlhfl;lt.1 |a n/gho41rovf Stay jfnnV.7/llfml<7n/nnollee71s,!btat11geographical-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 ###NEWPAGE n="20" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="21" ### -. - - -. . 'P - - - -.-- - 4 '... ; S- lipF 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. Under it related 1965 stat ute, the I cLgislaiu rc ldvo fared miles-, of Dade 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 Iv 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 pivt ijui j Iiogi i lit atliakt-rs Bllvr thlid li;iriiiiii'sinorthern limit, before its passage." '1here is rio rel)iir te-d '1,111uil,11t dr( I- "idrickl 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 ###NEWPAGE n="22" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="23" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="24" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="25" ### 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 78. ) (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., 1960). 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 ###NEWPAGE n="26" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="27" ### 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 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, lrtasl tvprnestd In fhsl and rhe ,,thtrr ytulsltn th efr tl so neal nln warnlĄ 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 ###NEWPAGE n="28" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="29" ### Point emphasized by some legal writers.56 Nevertheless, Luttes is significant because it "established a littoral boundary for Spanish [and other pre-1840] grants in Texas which is practical, certain, and stable. Consequently, it is now possible for two surveyors, each working independently, to locate a particular littoral boundary in substantially the same position."57 2. The Common-Law Rule: As opposed to the long uncertainty over the seaward boundary of Spanish/Mexican grants, "In Texas there does not seem to have been any real controversy over locating the boundary of common law grants. The [state's] General Land Office and the Attorney General's Office traditionally accepted the line of mean high tide as being applicable to all Texas common law surveys ... [T]he Supreme Court of the United States put all problems concerning the common law to rest in [the Borax case in 1935] ..."58 The principles of the scientific and practical Borax rule were followed in Rudder v. Ponder,59 decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 1936. In Rudder, claimant's predecessors had been issued patents to land adjoining Copano Bay on the Gulf Coast by the Republic in 1841. Consequently, the court applied the common-law upland/tideland boundary, which it interpreted to be "the mean high tide [line] of the sea waters," noting that this line "gives these [patent] holders more land than they would have received if the civil law shore line applied."60 Therefore, in Texas the mean of all high waters over a 19-year tidal epoch is used in determining the seaward limit of littoral lands originally granted after January 20, 1840. B. Legal Effect of Physical Changes in the Location of the Shoreline Texas law, in general, follows the usual rule that the legal boundary between uplands and tidelands shifts as a consequence of those gradual, imperceptible physical changes in the shoreline known as accretion and erosion." But the Texas courts have apparently qualified this general rule by holding that private littoral owners are entitled to the accreted land only when it is created entirely by natural means.62 This "artificial accretion" qualification appears to be somewhat similar to that in California.63 However, in the landmark Luttes decision, the court failed to decide the matter, stating: "The law question of whether accretions resulting from human agency may or may not belong to the abutting landowner is ... not in the case, and our original opinion is ... to he construed as not ruling on that point."64 Earlier, in 1943, the Texas Supreme Court had held that when accretion resulted from artificial additions by a private upland owner, the state would not lose title to the newly exposed land that formerly had been beneath tidal waters." In this case, an "oysterhouse was built on a narrow strip of land, and a pier extended from it into the water. Shells thrown from the pier caused the current of the bay to deposit sand gradually so that the strip ... eventually became ... dry land." Another question faces Texas courts: What is the legal effect of the point of beginning of the accretion in determining who is entitled to the accreted land? A 1955 decision indicated that if the process starts at an island or creates a high point in the sea bottom and then moves toward the older upland or mainland, the new dry land belongs to the state.67 But one critic asserts that "[a]ll accretion necessarily builds up from the botom [sic] pf the sea," and "that a rule to the effect that a landowner is not entitled to [such] accretion ... does not take into account [that] rather fundamental tact."68 Erosion is widespread in Texas. The 1980 State Hearing Draft of the proposed but rejected Texas Coastal Program concluded: "Long-term erosion has subjected 13 percent of the Texas Gulf shoreline to severe erosion and shoreline retreat and 42 percent to moderate long-term erosion and shoreline retreat. Continuing erosion along the Gulf coast intensifies vulnerability to storm waves and hurricane flooding, ... "... Of the 1100 miles of hay and estuarine shoreline in Texas, 37 percent is undergoing varying rates of shoreline erosion, Generally, these rates appear to be lower, and more localized, than on the Gulf shoreline. ..."69 To protect life and property against the serious risks of such erosion, especially when coupled with storm waves and hurricanes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others have constructed seawalls, bulkheads and revetments. In Galveston, for instance, a concrete curved-faced seawall (Fig. 1) helps safeguard the city from the inevitable hurricanes. In the wake of the 1900 Galveston hurricane, which virtually leveled the city, "[a]n estimated 6000 to 8000 people were dead or missing and North America had experienced its worst recorded natural disaster. Galveston rebuilt and protected itself with its famous seawall. ... In 1915 a hurricane again struck Galveston. ... But this time only 12 died."70 The state legislative response to Texas' erosion problem has ranged from enacting laws providing for Gulf shore seawall construction by cities and counties71 and requiring the School Land Board's approval of projects that could contribute to erosion on state-owned lands,72 to appropriating funds for "the historical monitoring of the Texas Gulf shoreline to measure the rate of erosion."73 Subsidence is another critical physical hazard along the Texas coast,74 although a recent state report said that "the trend toward increased subsidence rates has been reversed."75 Texas law has been slow to respond to title and legal boundary problems resulting from subsidence. For example, in a case involving ownership of 3,353 acres of land submerged beneath the Houston Ship Channel primarily because of subsidence, the intermediate appellate court held that the private littoral owner was not deprived of "title to the land as long as the boundaries can be reasonably identified."76 But the Texas Supreme Court appeared to limit that decision, the writer of the opinion stating that the rule would not apply to a subsided area within tidewater limits.77 One legal commentator has sharply criticized this limitation, asserting that the condition "goes a long way toward rendering the announced principal [sic] a nullity."78 26 SHORE AND BEACH ###NEWPAGE n="30" ### - 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 pliehd ite TVIS, alIheIMLIh few. appellate dusiry. in luditic eereerncrilil 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 eil Iest ijjpropriated. by de- and to tidal waterrs ol the( (;tl (iel oh cixim , bays and II feiil isu4 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 eiWIII 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 ###NEWPAGE n="31" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="32" ### 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. destruction or removal of a sand dune on a barrier I. This rlasshiatior is used or convenience and 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. Maine, 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. stires 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 (19080). 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 ###NEWPAGE n="39" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="40" ### 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 etnlhra., o, tb,,, Itll h'lre,,o! lall ],, tada b,,nndarlw169ad19 ate dt....,an .Ąa, 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 ###NEWPAGE n="41" ### "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 ###NEWPAGE n="42" ### 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 drĄ-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 ###NEWPAGE n="43" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="44" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="45" ### 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'hisrightofiii acess stems from 41. See "Title to Lands and Waters 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 Nj. 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: '. . . The 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 Repeiiing Greeilticater Reiosre.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. mpra, 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 .\ei 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'irafih '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 Iflliatcs 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. lorsgh 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 ###NEWPAGE n="46" ### 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, 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 Cn 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 . horders, 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" ttt ,I ,tttmr ' 'iiJ I, Ii.'. I I" (,r,,e. ,the ,rothato ,Ilia aCrt, ropĄrtq prieli'otn for the is , ,,.,i ....S ,o ..... constitutes a "state recreation area."'" In earlier laws, 16 SHORE AND BEACH ###NEWPAGE n="47" ### 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, precise in defining the I heSo Iei l'rLi'd a ns Xc c f 19 3 otfimed upland/tideland bouttndary. For example. in 1959 Ifc Slbruer'-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 "upon its admissioninito the ujnion acqluired title to ci'ol.raiihi( al-nilic strip inl the Paeifi ( )ceari thec Inreshore that then lav betsseen the ordinary high and low% water tnarks,'' defined tidelands as "lands usually 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 ILaw27 and the 1969 Thornton vex, v tltt' ibiaioscitn harts1nis(n deision,25 ( oticri(t.tttt pufldii rights, inl the dry-sand area, ss tt hI ttIprI(- 2 h vegetat ion li' Ih I;asssottied inureasing importance. )I-eLotlfr, lls 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 Iot' 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 ###NEWPAGE n="48" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="49" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="50" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="51" ### 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 Iso fSl·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 rcent but utindat ed report 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 ###NEWPAGE n="52" ### 215.life 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 reitlt. thelb'tn -Seea.ls" i'it, Br,, to State Tax(.,,oq'n, I i()Or. 23i, 247, o2 decision shoutld hake beets bited ott the doctrine ol fibi 'o vh ? RP2(d 7. 9 (1936): 11,11e v li5,t irlaAn /. I Or. 237. 243. insteadi of th ilie 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 of the I16- laws 7014. For critical legal commentaries lin this statutlrvcIlsnge 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" Laod,. , 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'le 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'! Biarl 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 Aiei, 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'etation as established and described . Or. Re%, Statt. conveyed by the United States before Washington entered the Un- § 391)0605(2). (Emphasis added.) 'rhe ocean shore 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. note 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 Land 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 riparian 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 & Beath, 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 of 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 ###NEWPAGE n="53" ### 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) 24 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 274. -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 sq 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. 7ohlnior %. 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 ###NEWPAGE n="54" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="55" ### fit 1937 till' state viuiac rd legislation Iit anl attermpt Io Tllcolctuali%, diicefote. Louiisiania has 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 Suplentc (Cmttill in1950 applied its calliel (inci- commo11n-law, pmipiuipe i.e., that the oidinlarN high- 51011" ttiltt(.llot Li ouIiusiania. 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 unullsual 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 tcItiqII(islicd its title claimls to U se of thec *higiie"st tide. of Iicl 5511n1(1 seasonl as sthteud I ,ulds withiit tlie iiollidill iIs Of at sta mle 55'(1 Loullsaial 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-Iweverc. 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 Coul 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 offslicr claimis. Secitni, 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 produtction 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. Upland/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 boutiarics bet ween privately owned winter seaSon.''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' res 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 provisioni 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 ###NEWPAGE n="56" ### --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 ANDMBAC ###NEWPAGE n="57" ### 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 Piotviol tlTiIt list i 111(1 t halt c oastail Nuiei' I.ottsitIc 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 Louiisiania'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, ('lotio 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 Iltavigable 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) oic 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 legal 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 sctrolis 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 Loeal Coastal Maniagement Act of 1978 Sion (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 publi lands, c-oastaoliresoLiteecsiprograni'' litha 'all uses and activlitieIs 'must be interpreted somew&hatnmore broad]lythan [its] shallbe plnned site, deigned ccstruced, peratd Nsords Permit literally; that is, the provision must atitlmaintined o a'id tothe mximumexten lra- 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- rapidly 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. rventiv 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 ###NEWPAGE n="58" ### l-Iistori( al ly, Lo)uisiana's civil-law tradition in tie- lionl aind louilhg;aioni ( ot . . . i ldI() It t 01- orV flis ("Perate"l Io protect he public's coastal access 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 (ostaI 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 coastal 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 problems 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, Division 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 ai 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.( iittiit 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 ( tti. More thin 25i A. Leasing %%reiturttlusaiwtatids inthe t 'mitd Staitt-saiit itt jiisi- mia. Coitnimnin, Cortjlifotng Intlerets 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 ###NEWPAGE n="59" ### ilk I? If 21 Io4 a4 f Iftit Ilis( iissioii ofIbeeuit Me114 ec4:1I IIItg di I11. XIII It '- if(.tits Ir i1Sut' tI I- (144 ist is iio itlt lkII.I lit at iilfl]pi] 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 Loilist.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 Wittin 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 .iiiiii: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 Coaisiil 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' lc c ax cse, Site S/ifor Si4944III II.1111 SI it 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 44441l445Iii44iitiiiiidi Iitis ii ri am 21 i. 67 Skill. 29. *13 U'.S.C. 1301 4-7 seq. 4 .Sete 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 , lI 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.' La. (: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. (Footncii 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 Melavtarime-ni -, t' of'S 28 La.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 is 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 Cod I of 1 87 0. ItI d Sies not chIanrgri' lie las'.' LaU-. isc-f itt( Iv 8144:44S) atd lt4 114 Ri t kc'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 Fitaii 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! La 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 ''('1pilculd 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.sioners, 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 hcait 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'eltidtsiiithestiti'. 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 La. Attn. 2-16. 3 Sol 636 118884. 18S. 1 tid4t4 :i 4c(41444 iti t (on itiisi'. Iiti e ''tlantds in ili',t- Aiihtfalyxa 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 la. 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 pltiuilI' ( cit [o 4( pcin emit ct filei liasili 144 II I cast's scc-In link mtiterial with this holding. Swee Roussri %. Grant. op ic't-t II it), Ill(pidhic . andc ),4l1( Iltasi 0', :tiic donattionto 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 ###NEWPAGE n="60" ### 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 -1id loiiiid ditttll' llt-.IiC 1151i 11 5(005 II plop'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 fh'(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 Aof1Ilig 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'bdils iid liiollt i )t ill tialiablli %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'alers (1711 plisllineiti of nis aiithlinid pt- l ibic fuim till ir pu11(1'v nf Ihv I iternt wi-paiaoRi'ghtls-'Aces.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, -- 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 lavaii 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( niamctntit 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-Ashford 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 emnbrac 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 211akiotg 111v edge, of v'egetation growlin....[ WIlt 1ilt' the of privatec lands in Land Commission awat ds, roa 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 ###NEWPAGE n="84" ### 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 laa 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 eXtending 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 Subse IIentf MIN lawi SupremeI 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 acquireI declaring that "the true mneasure of high water niark tin Ioetvwhid i is th pee of 'six tirnes [lie si/c of thec this jurisdiction is the uippler reaches of the wash of thle plvit'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 neduttferstate 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 laa eXtenision",II[" thi roif con trolling in H-awaii. But the matter reniaints c louded b-lieves- ifia[ eqtil itvaild sound Iublli 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 aaiSirn 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 previously 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 principles 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 property 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 Sotoitnra 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 foiined 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 suddenI 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 ###NEWPAGE n="85" ### 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' spec ls of fish bc'ac I access. 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\vaiouIs theoriesf ofalaw to cStalI)iish anid prlr U.S.. Scp cInteri C.ourt Iupheld tilce validity oif pleexist ing publ ic actSS."ti", Poinmiting toIhcch Oregoln Su prelie pi ivaltc fishitin lighic s St tessirig thca t Ilawa 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 beachies to) '1'cesc' dcc isicotis lcversecl a I lawani Supremei 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 cotci'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) to 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 cto 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. oil 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 ###NEWPAGE n="86" ### 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 rosaiCt 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 eni SIg ttIi taoe dic()pe.1t'I itf)'t[g laIii. mnt itliIIg f Nit .IH tail lIttl il itll 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 ###NEWPAGE n="87" ### oft ith waves (20 feet for certaini sma II parcelIs) in which 12. Ili I 839 tw Ilictlataiori of Rights, also talld thr tIawaiiati COns Sut Ion 6 1 and other opera (iOns art' generall 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, Ulilty perts 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 iitiiillm 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; (Onntint-1. S141)ra, nowc ', S I Ilaw. L. Re-s. ;t 112 ti. 67. app iowed Iw the F-ederal1 Government in Sepuember I-1IA'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, ntle 3. 23. 1977 Haw. 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(- Coastal 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'dedILanids,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 rits-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 Ki- 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 Iloijoh/ij s-. Ifeuioen. 57 (Liii-. 195, I 97-2(1-1, Classa iiani usage-:-hFi-t-comtnon lass- FutEglanul -as asceriai ntt 552 11. 2d1 13801, 1384-1I388 (1ti7). litt- Ci t andi CG itititolu Holmn- Ii; En rglishi andi Ati-tvic-at diecisionts, is dcti 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 hvitle 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), ba 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 oticirii-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 ###NEWPAGE n="88" ### 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. Rpr. 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 .IlI 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'tiiti 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. tilt' 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( Ilialt. Terr. %. Kerr. 111 Ha%%i. :113 ) 1901): llallerad V.(. 7 fd.587 gt'lltralIN lbt [4(141i41 dl 114t', times'' o(1il ixji 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' Manlagement) Programl, I(4( il. Supp. No. 21 (1980), fUrtherf gIMNIwII hxt' ;kditi ix i1iiiiit'ti liV xAIl -Wi4)41 IllIIlatI 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 emphasisxi addlted). titfinIitIi(Jn 'ta s dtI Ł4 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 lt' uiJiland tidetladlt bounitdary ax set ford) ill 01 ht t't I li' uotiiuto ( lt (4lr .' 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( ui on of 414 (Ii its s', xet 5/IorI' %V'gt'l utg0lII 0 debris title'.I Itiita 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 AXpcpis mentliotlet [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 lt'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 waiterfronllti 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( tldillg lit ' evraI 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 prope 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 4141gislerctd Supreme (:11(41'' illpjlit it a((t-la e o Wht'1141 ' v1v1 4 lt't ll, . .ill 1.1 jlriatae kind4 [ie., 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.tgilia- dlot 44111111 dties I false' 1144. %t'.wart([ 14 44141.ln 4 it' 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 ###NEWPAGE n="89" ### 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- pittsat 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 is 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 atlow5t 11k hliilw t ifsilteltsi 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( coNiv of ilw satllt- itittittd of uslablislhtng" 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-illstt Id. § I 88-5-15. It rttitii AIN-. ittwi it ii tiltit. oft titi I Taisaii Suptreme. CoIarr's lIn addltltioltt it kijto/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- quatkc 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-ii .t)itl o 1 a.I76. 18.3-18-i, 517 at ItIJlI) W&S idC aftet theitosit, atit int light of the SibtALsetirn 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 lAwSitu 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[ Doctrine-. 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 ri-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-rillt 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 linr-' 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 Hiis. 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 ###NEWPAGE n="90" ### -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, ntet 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 ###NEWPAGE n="91" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="92" ### 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 courtesy of Stephen P. Leatherman, University of Maryland.) ###NEWPAGE n="93" ### 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 judge.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 Wlte inl Ihi (ollrt () tll( irig liosues aiid otheri struc tures. When 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 ltniit 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 liiil A('t, the un (If 'mean igh tie, affcted lv tin eriillltlicltittil."'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 appatremn 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 Will 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 publ)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 landlliml( 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 Wo'aoe..' 1632. by which the lands and waters now. wvithin thie I loW(vervc, thils stat nit tryIanguage waes ambiguoius for stalle were gran ted by) the English crown to the lord ses'eral reasoins. I'irst, ''it otiftises at cretioin, which is a prolirietoir of the co(lony'. expressly 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 expand 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- publil: trust has playe'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 Rrotlm' ' 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 ###NEWPAGE n="94" ### 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 SHORE AND BEACH ###NEWPAGE n="95" ### After heHrc csth tl dsAtwas amnended 6i. Ovattiilton ()I lit tonirntissiot. iositi nttg 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 despIteain 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 Report 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- Ittt 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 fixing ri-silmtts." bibd. count y's powerI, tInder 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 Chlte 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 Alarvlatd C;oastal Mlanagementt Program dot i- tint-nt states that NIbitlattits part of ''the Chesapeake Ba) aten is the 1975 Beach Erosion Control District Act92 are elharatcuiiitt 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 encyclope-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 Wetlands 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-Goastal Shows., 5 11. Bfaht. L. ReV. 31,35-1 (1976). Maryland embraces preltions of Atlantic Administration, Department of Natural Resources, O .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 SHORE AND BEACH ###NEWPAGE n="116" ### '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 ###NEWPAGE n="117" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="118" ### lt'Žsc 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 Thuaire atirhor is grateful to Kcithr Buirrenran, adminis- (Coastal Io ior landis 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. Btadfi 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 pulstilts whoi virlul oxinid faint fill lit, islandii or h1.1d fiittttd, tistic' i of (nitd 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- -Vi 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,tise 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(ItittIiifi ttitt115'tt odbnddntrt specTified in a uniform local wet lands zoning ordi- ott its tiglt to05 Itim eile t iastsli'iectteeiit 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 'ri ;a we-t-lands ale utinvasota blN d ist u rbed; [artd I atIr Monugrmrl ai'eiei IV ougraimi Dco ii eiei I (Aug. 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.' ' Ltioitttititeti, (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'gciUttl 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 MaINaliild. lcItuIS)Ivallia aicll ttlic D)tiri(I td ttluiiut- JANUARY 1985 11 ###NEWPAGE n="119" ### 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 vIii 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 iII 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 via 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 oic 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))5li 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,-4rlic'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. Code § 62.1-13.1 el )eq. For a hiief discussioni4 441 114is st1a4tute the 4 ovill44)iol4.,l tll4 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'aters, 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 i3lp 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 scjawrd. 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 tbi ',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 IautIs 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.EŁ.2d. ai 872 express [elms below low watcr tinark to in( lude 41412 14d441', iftidlte 41. 1; f/Illrston1 N. P4,rt.ovo44u14 205 Va. 909. 91 1. I 1OS.Ł241 ((78. al80 creeks anrd itn I is') (1(44444,4124)11n4ttd). Fo41 r Iiiefls 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(ii444ry 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 ie42.1-2 WmIIphiasi addt-li.144l live124341141tt', Ib4giifilitg iii 1i72 41444 pclimiiiId4li 414-a4444'fu.r (if 31. Aso4f this mitiIng. there h444-4. b-'n if) r4.'oi4tted V.irgitn.:iaa pcilate 4444 etoro(f tlit 1819A'4. 41 ll whi h ixre',',y lt(4og4ize tat-4l4444442ictalt4134,14( 4.414. i1'ltdle 4521,i. 18.6-)41I,4ra4v4rage oif a ripa4rian4 Llandownierl 4144 ter[3 %w.44r',er [4444 44) 4lit' lw i',vtr 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 of 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 Dot 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.illishing 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 p4ile.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(ad 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 ###NEWPAGE n="120" ### II,1.( 21 h111. liii' (I111j21 IIi 1112I2211is1(it22I1% 3II12 1)I,1III (if8 Il 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 dlayfdltltII. 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 Hill)lis' i ibe(I1 'S Bu.11-I .lll 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. AI.. 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. Nti [.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 irIttg 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 3Illi28 J., ill'(1i1321d 32 owll 19% Nil,. -1,IJ 0(2lolwl b19811)2 2i(131rlIs Sug( o-l' ). ia [lit11241 tkll'i 'S 2)211 /lliIl %%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 Oll 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 Wll)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 aso 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 IdH.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)dŁ1 '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 clSale'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 Ai%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.dltli 21112' l ll'.I'l22li 1 1)11 121112111221% IisI'.. I'I1'111111213125 1151322111 ill Iltly 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(rl Ialdil 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 ###NEWPAGE n="121" ### I,;( t a ll I SVI % IIit 1 I ( C XCIt I(Y.I i S [l' 1 ,LIII' llil( I IN )IMII)) 1114 A b il c 8 I III , I . III, II,·n.I I Ai .il)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 4o 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 ###NEWPAGE n="122" ### 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 ###NEWPAGE n="123" ### 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. SHORE AND BEACH ###NEWPAGE n="124" ### "[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 ###NEWPAGE n="125" ### (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'tYa(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 sohlditt 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 owners 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 access 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- exiicat 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 fAoaCaa aaeetPormaifFa ni lease, area and riearbv 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 affirmed 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 iission 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 tcictliitti. Biophii''Nt oil Boundaries of .-laska'sc SHORE AND BEACH ###NEWPAGE n="126" ### 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 phsical 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. ditci 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 ii( i ll sialni's. Id. at 112-113. lei soino ilisltimcs. ithi' disitit I pioglialtl Sttlmlutt'l Itiiijls fioIllipcitim oiil' ill att;I a lviim SOIl'. hast' chialigi-d 11 tiiliidodioii 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 iifi AX1, tsk StIILIIlO d-ills ih % d liditil 15 tido l it, 111 J1'115'1' "il'i'siills Iin Alaskait m tildinp ig jllmiali iia of050 thIat l ullilids. 110111] 2 1. Id. § 38.445.7.820) (91198). thi' Alaska Sioitchood AlI 11)1 1958. 72 Stitt 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 lit 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 Managcniivitli ploi.titl (lotl Hitiit 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 piopoliti (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- onvsatio 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 hi(. dtiiisi Lssiottli i this Icgill d11111liii. wiIoms it(m, us ii ill willh ilit-ptiigt 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'es 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. § 1411il (.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 ###NEWPAGE n="127" ### 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 lott 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 Iictlinitials itisiti tiljt- hatik o it4 1983 Jp( Als taska Atix . (;en Nit. 3. is t. is Illictt ii't-d lailka Sigit-Ns wt lew ilIttt. 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 (onvesaltili 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'ttiif't leI(tt. N. (iviosnu I-ľteip 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 os" 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 ###NEWPAGE n="128" ### 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 encompass 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 ial (Illil illiai Peir. or hs prpl Ntirsi not retied r) 1)riate palties In tiit' colonial authorities -atit art amotg tirt' stawtt's tmolst p)1pulai viitatiOti bt'fow IIIhe Revc i ltiolioaly Winr. ;Hill. Yi't. Iin still k t li inu. Iii 4f tlit- lottshowt' 01 title-- lit addition to its Atltric l)arrict- islritin bvtallih', the( lilis I'tl't Iinitstal's h I thr's D J ftlvaware av atit state's shoreline indudes 33.5 miltes along the Delaware 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- Delaware juichiciar struggletd w.ith diverse historical, tlit'tillt 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 Fenrick 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 Delavwai c's ( xastaid /Amt- 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( DIeaware 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)Vt' 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 st,.t' povl)5' andt julisthittitlt -i-Igl I. ,wI..'rr' III. I"' 111, li"I, III., Mei rrrOtI st( hr laberth., JULY 1985 9 ###NEWPAGE n="129" ### (ill St'qJI It'lls, IIe IC our t of ChanI cery den ied the( Phil liv wIi' ria (k. I lit -illlhIsigi -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- haitt 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 WtilliamiIeiisitetsipt 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 ilistiiriiisiofyin 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 lotr 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 cocldd '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' Ideasaepratl 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 property' rights, holds title to the p)remtise thatlthe patentts described 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 wntaeitth( 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 prevatiled 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'/. llutkiton 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 stitt'd 'lIt is jiiiy tthe riarar ttiil- ictor.'' c qitesriorr ... is sitripls wloliet tiln' wooltir ''heai /it rr" IrI t-Sie Iot) I. .rw Sit 'eI II vI v Irrr aIrI itt-w ofii [etu tIf--- '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 iaillfwd (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 ###NEWPAGE n="130" ### C. SubMerged 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 Lands 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 inls 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 heIatidlul 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 proplltty 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 aldccttdlands by virtuec lawv and( ill its Coastal] Mallageentil Plograill 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 lcmgnicid 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 cieslo ccii cntcS. 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' (; anllicg' 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 hcic 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- Icccclc'c c . i-scilclislcc-cuaby dcc icctl aw ccd citi'a ena 1919 PennsylIvan 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 Delaware Supreme ictscilicgtclgc-ccalc-tilixttcc ici cccclcvilcticccidcoccrt allucded to the general pUbli('s rights ill [Ile Sti- Icccctiec cv, icc chic-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 auset N pslv1) sestsed' the dispu ted ce anfiiront land s, JULY 1985 1 1 ###NEWPAGE n="131" ### 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 Wpmrt- ''llawaes 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 rt Waltmtgott Bltittoe,ttd Iltktd'ljltt tk'tO- [lie] finds necessary to pertmit [fie extraction atul tratis- poltanates. tttle wilt ltefac tat n a avrao'e portatiotl of oil, gas, Sulphur or other ttdterals fromt NIttutuer 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: bein 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 wil 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- quae 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: '. [Local 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 nsylvamnia Railroad to be considered by the secretary of the Departmr'nt of Casel 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 prellensive 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 Cjittc 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 Contr.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 tivitiesare 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, tion of a pier, jetty, breakwater, boat railp, Or tnlitlitg, SHOREf AND BEACH ###NEWPAGE n="132" ### IIIit i (I g, ot (-X(mtatiottt . l Ap)ptIi(atiofls foi It hits ate itt I)MAP. sprta 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- Hillsg ala nu whicach sah se eraiaIad ccolg Ihc 11"-d ulitoe tntvics ln nttiitishd hi tjwttd(1i iewl vt iri 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 Atgtic' 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 INiatif22, 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 (Del. 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 uplandcs 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-isicfrci . 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 ###NEWPAGE n="133" ### indtlmolt' whlitlvill.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 hasinlg 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 Dt' 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 Tiliolttt, followed 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 Lidtltay 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-ethIlbsi,,d Dlielost'..IIc Iletet Ynta o o idal Btliii 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 32511851I1I 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 iltiit 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 true . .. the lawt% Ittitles Iv itg ietwtcit the linc', of IlttI hirl and [ilegan lot wltivi 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); Phillipss. 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'laltliont 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 tm' santetower',, 1iii kliig t'ilttihuitrt'tpi iKilinga'qiipiii tiiir iii laiootis Lase [tha t liiiiitalted itt lit' Delawart' Supremne Court'N 1969 [su(. II as I oili tifinities, haiti 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 ',itii' 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