Such other States as Texas,' ''' Virginia,' '^ 

 and Alabama' ' ^ regulate such limited uses as the 

 leasing of submerged lands or protection of shell- 

 fisheries, through the establishment of "bulkhead 

 lines" or "harbor lines." 



residential or recreational areas; interference with 

 aesthetic or scenic value; creation of air, water or 

 other pollution; danger to marine life or other 

 wildlife; as well as interference with corrmierce or 

 navigation.' ^^ 



D. Wetlands Protection Laws 



Closely akin to the Florida approach regarding 

 bulkhead lines are the statutes enacted in several 

 States which are designed to protect and conserve 

 ecological values. These States include Maine,' ' ' 

 New Hampshire,' ' ^ Massachusetts,' ' ' and Rhode 

 Island.'^" 



The Massachusetts statute prohibits the re- 

 moval, fUhng, or dredging of any bank, flat, marsh, 

 meadow, or swamp bordering on coastal waters 

 without a permit from the State Commissioner of 

 Natural Resources, and specified local governing 

 bodies. In addition, a related statute authorizes the 

 Commissioner, with approval of the Board of 

 Natural Resources, to adopt regulations concern- 

 ing alteration or pollution of coastal wetlands. If 

 the State courts find the regulations constitute a 

 "taking" of property in violation of the 5th 

 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Depart- 

 ment of Natural Resources may condemn the land 

 in fee or lesser interest by eminent domain. 



Other States, while having no express wetlands 

 protection laws per se, require considerations 

 other than navigation in granting permits and 

 leases. New York requires its Commission of 

 Conservation to ascertain the probable effect on 

 the use of navigable waters for navigation, the 

 health, safety, and welfare of the people, and the 

 effect on the natural resources of the State, likely 

 to result from channel excavation or fill.'^' 

 Oregon's criteria for granting a lease to remove ma- 

 terial for commercial use include considerations of 

 health, safety, and welfare; interference with 



E. Regulation of Wharves, Piers, and Other Struc- 



tures 



123 



114 



Texas Stat., art. 5415e(7). 



'"Va. Code, §62-2.1 (1966 Supp.). 



"*Ala. Stats., tit. 38, §122. 



"''n Maine Rev. Stat. Ann., §4701 (Supp. 1967). 



"*N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann., ch. 483-A (Supp. 1967). 



'"Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann., ch. 130, §27A (1967 

 Supp.). 



'^°Rhode Island Gen. Laws, tit. 46, ch. 11, §1-1 (1967 

 Supp.). 



'^'New York, Conservation Law, §429(b)(3). 



While in EngUsh common law the upland 

 owner had no right to wharf out into the 



'O.R.S. 274.760. 



We wish to acknowledge the work of the Marine 

 Environment Legal Research Project of the New York 

 University Law Center and Fordham University School of 

 Law. Their paper, "The Land-Sea Interface of the Coastal 

 Zone of the United States: Legal Problems Arising Out of 

 the Multiple Use and Conflicts of Private and PubUc 

 Rights and Interests," under a contract let by the 

 National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering 

 Development, and their advice have been of considerable 

 assistance in the preparation of sections E and F, as well 

 as certain other parts of this chapter. 



Figure 7. Progressive dredging and filling in 

 Boca Ciega Bay, St. Petersburg. Florida, 1920- 

 1965. Present jurisdiction to control excessive 

 development is being contended (Source: Bu- 

 reau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Labo- 

 ratory, St Petersburg, Florida) 



III-128 



