396 



level. This need has also been expressed by the panel (on management 

 and development of the coastal zone of the Commission on Marine 

 Science, Engineering and Resources) in their recommendation that 

 a national seashore boundary commission be established by the Con- 

 gress with authority to hear and determine coastal boundary questions 

 and controversies involving proprietary interests of the States. 



In addition, the Supreme Court was asked in June 1969 to rule on 

 a dispute between the Federal Government and the 13 Atlantic States 

 over title to offshore lands (docket No. 35 original, 37 Law Week 

 3483). These States claim that for the purposes of granting leases and 

 collecting royalties for oil exploration and production, and on the basis 

 of colonial charters granted by the British Government before the 

 Constitution was adopted, their authority extends up to 100 miles to 

 the outer Continental Shelf. Texas and Louisiana have also asserted 

 jurisdiction beyond the 3-mile zone in another unresolved dispute. 



DIVERSITY OF STATUTES AMONG STATES 



A survey of intergovernmental relations in the coastal zone disclosed 

 that: (V-3-2) 



State statutes establishing distinctions between public resources and private 

 property and the extent of State responsibility for management of public 

 resources have little in the way of uniformity. Even if legislatively clear, the 

 distinctions are difficult to fix on the ground. The resulting situation is a 

 legal nightmare. 



In effect there is a separate legal system for each coastal State and 

 management programs for the States must take each of them into 

 consideration. A broad range of estuarine zone policies are affected by 

 some of these interstate variations : 



(1) Basic Water Laws — Eastern States follow the riparian 

 doctrine, in which water rights are tied to ownership of adjoin- 

 ing or underlying land. Western States generally accept the first- 

 in-time, first-in-right appropriation doctrine in which rights are 

 acquired or abandoned by use. Unlike riparian law, priority in 

 time determines water rights, independent of land ownership. To 

 complicate matters further. States on the Pacific recognize both 

 these rights while Louisiana accepts elements of the Napoleonic 

 code. 



Water law does not closely control water use. For example, 

 under riparian law, water should be free from "unreasonable" 

 pollution so that "reasonable" use may be made of it. Yet the 

 interpretation and application of these water rights affect the 

 type of improvements and accertions that may be made by ripar- 

 ian owners, such as reclaiming land, constructing piers, or 

 removing sand and gravel. 



(2) Tideland Boundaries — a majority of States claim owner- 

 ship under English common law from the high water mark sea- 

 ward to the 3-mile limit, but, there are significant variations. 

 Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Vir- 

 ginia, and Georgia permit private land to the low water marlv. 

 Thus, in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland claims all the coastal land 

 from the mean high tide mark while Virginia asserts its 

 ownership only from the mean low tide. 



