These are exemplified by aesthetic judgments such as public decisions 

 on landscape and architectural design. A long battle over removal of 

 unsightly advertising signs has fueled this legal discussion. Complex 

 amortization and compensation provisions are often added to this type of 

 regulation to adjust the balance of public purpose and private harm. 



Coastal environmental legislation does not clearly fit into either 

 category. As coastal ecosystem diagnosis becomes more precise, nuisance- 

 like health, safety and welfare effects are more easily identified. But 

 in the interim, courts have been influenced by legislative findings that 

 capsulize the considerations that support particular regulatory programs. 



In California, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development 

 Commission benefited greatly from a strong legislative statement in defense 

 of the Bay in its authorizing legislation. Initial court challenges to 

 tough dredge and fill regulations were rebuffed with references to the 

 clear objectives the legislature had set out. The courts found the power 

 to regulate land uses in such sensitive areas "develops, within reason, to 

 meet the changed and changing conditions [of the present day]" [5]. 



Competing Public Interest in the Affected Property 



In or near water areas, government agencies can sometimes claim a 

 preexisting public interest in coastal land to further justify strict 

 regulation and sidestep constitutional challenge. The navigation 

 servitude from the Zabel v. Tabb case offers one example where Federal 

 courts allowed the denial of a dredge and fill permit based on environment- 

 al considerations and the servitude [6]. 



State and local regulations often require the dedication of public 

 accessways in certain development situations, most frequently with the 

 subdivision of land. The rationale is the same as that used when land for 

 streets is required by local government in a new development. Court rulings 

 on this issue vary from state to state but several states have a clear line 

 defining what is and is not a constitutional dedication requirement, often 

 permitting substantial mandatory land dedications. 



The legal rules surrounding the "public trust" in tidelands and 

 adjoining shorelands also frequently provide opportunities to sidestep the 

 taking question. In the early 19th century it was an established principle 

 that title to tidal wetlands was reserved to the states with the creation 

 of the Federal Union. In 1842 the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the extent 

 of these rights and agreed that earlier grants to private persons were 

 subject to the public's rights held in trust by the state. 



The notion has evolved differently in each of the coastal states. 

 In general, the argument says that title remains in the state because the 

 state holds title for the public trust. Grants for particular uses such 

 as wharfage and excavation may be valid, but regardless of the nature 



76 



