| mySPIN |
 Testing the Legislature on Riparian Rights
by Tom Campbell
April 8, 2010
When our legislature reconvenes next month they will face an important test from coastal property owners who want to reverse the state’s long-standing ban against terminal groins. We certainly understand the desire to restore shorelines. Property owners paid large sums of money to enjoy sandy beaches and feel they have the right to restore them.
People have argued over who owns coastal waters and land for centuries. A body of law regarding “riparian rights” has evolved. In a paper on water law prepared for the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at NC State University, Allain Andry, wrote, “Under North Carolina law, all land under saltwater bodies, lands subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and land under water that is subject to the influx of saltwater is owned by the State ‘in trust’ for the public.” A private property owner actually owns only the land above the traditional high-water mark. The owner is allowed “reasonable use” of water and sand beyond the high-water mark so long as he or she doesn’t interfere with the reasonable use of other property owners and the public.
If a property owner does anything that will harm of change the reasonable use of the land or water of another property owner the other owner’s riparian rights, as well as those of the public, have been violated. A seawall, jetty or rock groin placed in the water will cause erosion or diversion of water to another property owner according to a large body of evidence.
The Senate has passed a bill that would allow terminal groins but the House wisely refused to do so. The Coastal Resources Commission conducted a 300,000 dollar study on the impact of terminal groins and, by an 8-5 margin, recommended continuing the current ban. Some mistakenly believe this close vote resulted from insufficient proof of the damage groins can cause. It was nothing more than a reflection of the intense lobbying underway by those who want to remove the ban, restore their beaches and protect their property values.
An old Wanchese fisherman once commented on the changing sands at Oregon Inlet by saying, “If the ocean she wants to open an inlet, she’s gonna open an inlet. And if the ocean she wants to close an inlet, it’s gonna be closed and no man should try to fool with Mother Nature.”
As long as we have inhabited this region we can cite the changing nature of shorelines, inlets and water flow. Removing the ban on terminal groins is a class action lawsuit waiting to happen and if our understanding of the principles of riparian rights is correct the ban will be upheld. People who have enough dollars to buy waterfront property should also have enough sense to recognize the fragile and changing nature of shorelines before investing their money. I am one of them but knew the risks when I bought and recognize I don’t have the right to harm others’ property just to preserve mine. Even if it wasn’t the law it is the right way to treat others.
Resisting the pressure from special interests will be a real test of this legislature and we will all be watching to see how they respond. |
|
