Legal Reporter for the National Sea Grant College Program

Volume 2:3, 2003 SANDBARSSAANNDDBBAARRThe

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v.U.S., Civil Action No. 99-0028 (D. N. Mar. I. filedAug. 7, 2003).

Stephanie Showalter, J.D., M.S.E.L.

The United States District Court for the NorthernMariana Islands recently held that the UnitedStates possesses superior rights to the submergedlands of the Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands. Consequently, Commonwealthstatutes claiming authority over those lands arepre-empted by U.S. law.

BackgroundThe Commonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands (Commonwealth or Mariana Islands) has aunique and special relationship with the UnitedStates. In 1947, the United States agreed to act asTrustee for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,which included the Mariana Islands. In the late1960s, a number of countries within the TrustTerritory began exploring their political optionswith the U.S. On February 15, 1975, the UnitedStates agreed that, upon the termination of theTrusteeship Agreement in 1986, the MarianaIslands would become a self-governing common-wealth, similar in status to Puerto Rico.

Almost immediately, questions arose regardingcontrol of the submerged lands of the MarianaIslands. In January 1978, pursuant to the FisheryConservation and Management Act of 1976, theUnited States declared a 200-mile fishery conserva-tion zone around the Mariana Islands. The MarianaIslands challenged the U.S. action in court, but tono avail.1 In response, the Mariana Islands enacted

two statutes claiming sovereignty over their sub-merged lands and marine resources. In the“Submerged Lands Act,” the Mariana Islandsclaimed ownership of the submerged lands out to200 nautical miles. With the “Marine SovereigntyAct of 1980,” the Mariana Islands asserted authori-ty over a twelve-mile territorial sea and a 200-mileexclusive economic zone (EEZ). In 1995, theMariana Islands unilaterally leased submerged

Mariana Islands Lacks AuthorityOver Its Submerged Lands

Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2003).

Joseph Long, 3L

Litigation stemming from the 1999 New Carissa oilspill is slowly making its way through the courts.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recentlyaddressed two separate issues in a single appeal.The first issue involved an evidentiary question foradmission of expert testimony. The second issuewas whether attorney fees and expert witness feesare appropriate awards for successful plaintiffs in acivil suit brought under the Federal Oil PollutionAct and the Oregon Spill Act. The Court found theplaintiff ’s expert testimony was admissible.

Attorney and ExpertWitness Fees

Awarded in NewCarissa Litigation

See Carissa, page 4

See Submerged, page 13

Page 2 Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar

McQueen v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 580S.E.2d 116 (S.C. 2003).

Leah Huffstatler, 2L

The South Carolina Supreme Court recentlyreconsidered a takings claim in which the courtoriginally determined the property owner was notdue compensation even though the property couldnot be developed under state wetlands regulations.Based on a ruling in a similar case, the UnitedStates Supreme Court had remanded McQueen tothe state court for a determination of the amount ofcompensation due based on background principlesof state law.

BackgroundIn the early 1960s, Sam McQueen purchased twoundeveloped lots in North Myrtle Beach, SouthCarolina. The lots, situated alongside man-madesaltwater canals, remained unimproved through-out the next thirty years while surrounding lotswere developed and improved with bulkheads orretaining walls. In 1991, McQueen requested per-mission from the South Carolina Office of Oceanand Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) tobuild bulkheads on both lots. After an administra-tive delay, he again applied for permits to build thebulkheads and also to backfill the lots.

At a 1994 hearing regarding McQueen’s appli-cations, it was determined that the majority of bothlots had reverted to tidelands or critical area salt-water wetlands with only a few irregular portionsof high ground remaining on either lot. This meantthat without backfill and bulkheads, there was notenough high ground to develop the property. Thebackfill, however, would permanently destroy thecritical area environment on the lots. Based on thisfact, the OCRM denied the permits.

Mariana Islands Lacks Authority Over its Submerged Lands

Stephanie Showalter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Attorney and Expert Witness Fees Awarded inNew Carissa Litigation

Joseph Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Takings Claim Reconsidered in Light ofRecent Supreme Court Decision

Leah Huffstatler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

North Carolina Shellfish Contamination CaseMoves Forward

Jason Savarese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

SEANET Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

International Coastal Management: Tools for Successful Regional Partnerships and Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - A Bold Experiment

Simon Woodley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Climate Change, A Canadian PerspectiveMeinhard Doelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Book ReviewThe Empty Ocean by Richard Ellis

Stephanie Showalter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Coast To CoastAnd Everything In-Between . . . . . . . . 15

Table of ContentsTakings Claim

Reconsidered in Lightof Recent Supreme

Court Decision

Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar Page 3

McQueen then initiated action in state court toreceive compensation for the regulatory taking ofthe two lots. The lower state courts grantedMcQueen compensation, but the South CarolinaSupreme Court reversed and held that whileMcQueen was deprived of all economically benefi-cial use of the lots, he had no reasonable invest-ment-backed expectations because of pre-existingwetlands regulations.1 McQueen appealed to theUnited States Supreme Court, which grantedMcQueen’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacatedthe state supreme court’s decision, and remandedthe issue for further consideration in light of therecent Palazzolo decision.

Palazzolo and a New Approach to TakingsIn Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, Anthony Palazzolo wasunable to develop a waterfront parcel of land inWesterly, Rhode Island due to the property’s desig-nation under state law as protected coastal wet-lands. Palazzolo filed suit in state court claimingthe application of wetlands regulations to his prop-erty constituted a total taking requiring compensa-tion. The Rhode Island Supreme Court held thatPalazzolo had not suffered a total taking since aportion of the property was upland and free fromthe state’s wetlands regulations. Additionally, thestate court held that Palazzolo never held the rightto backfill the property’s wetlands because suchaction was already prohibited under state law atthe time he acquired title to the parcel. The UnitedStates Supreme Court reversed the holding of theRhode Island Supreme Court in Palazzolo andfound that in takings claims, pre-existing state reg-ulations are not dispositive of whether a landowneris on notice of those restrictions to his property.2

RulingOn remand, the South Carolina Supreme Courtreconsidered McQueen’s claim in light of Palazzolo.First, the court determined that McQueen’s proper-ty held no economic value and, thus, a total takinghad occurred.3 Next, the court identified thethreshold question for determining if compensa-tion is due as whether the property interest affectedis inherent in the plaintiff ’s ownership rights.4

According to Palazzolo, this inquiry should beanchored in background principles of state proper-ty and nuisance law.5 The court noted SouthCarolina’s long history of applying the public trust

doctrine to the state’s coastal lands and that histor-ically, the state retains presumptive title to landsbelow the high water mark. Based on this notion,the state has exclusive control of these lands andmust protect them for the public good.6

Furthermore, the court cited South Carolinalaw which states that wetlands “created by theencroachment of navigable tidal water” belong tothe state.7 Since the wetlands on McQueen’s prop-erty were created by continuous erosion from theadjacent man-made canal, the state now holds titleto them and they must be managed in accordancewith the state’s public trust doctrine.8 This rever-sion of McQueen’s lots to tidelands effected arestriction on the rights inherent in the ownershipof property bordering tidal water. As the proscribeduse of the wetlands was not an inherent right ofownership, McQueen is due no compensation.9

ConclusionAfter reconsideration of this issue under Palazzolo,the South Carolina Supreme Court found thatwhile there has been a total taking of McQueen’sproperty, he is due no compensation based on statelaw holding wetlands in public trust.

ENDNOTES1. McQueen v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 530

S.E.2d 628 (S.C. 2000). 2. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 626, 629-30

(2001).3. McQueen v. South Carolina Coastal Council, et al.,

580 S.E.2d 116, 119 (S.C. 2003). 4. Id.5. Palazzolo, 533 U.S. at 629.6. McQueen, 580 S.E.2d at 119.7. Id. at 120. 8. Id.9. Id.

Further, concluding that the oil statutes containspecific provisions providing for fee awards, theNinth Circuit upheld the district court’s award ofattorney fees and expert witness fees.

BackgroundOn February 3, 1999, the M/V New Carissa, an oilcargo vessel, anchored two miles off Coos BayNorth Spit, Oregon after determining that theweather was too rough to enter Coos Bay. The NewCarissa carried 400,000 gallons of bunker and dieselfuel. Unfortunately, the vessel’s anchor did not holdand rough weather pushed the ship shoreward. TheNew Carissa ran aground and began to leak oil. Tocontain the spilling oil, the Navy and the CoastGuard used napalm and explosives to burn the leak-ing fuel and sink the ship. This was the first timesuch methods were employed upon the UnitedStates’ mainland. Even with those efforts, an esti-mated 70,000 gallons of fuel escaped into the sur-rounding coastal areas, including Coos Bay.

Mr. and Mrs. Max Clausen, the plaintiffs,owned and operated Clausen Oysters, an oysterfarm located in Coos Bay. The Clausens and otheroyster farmers were forced to shut down operationsafter the Oregon Department of Agriculture detect-ed oil in the Coos Bay oyster beds. The oil infiltra-tion caused an estimated 3.5 million oyster deathsduring the week following the spill.

The Clausens brought suit in federal districtcourt against the New Carissa and its corporateowners and operator under the Federal OilPollution Act and the Oregon Spill Act, which holda party strictly responsible for damages caused by aspill of oil under its control. At trial the defendantssought to exclude the Clausens’ expert witness tes-timony concerning causation of the oyster deathsbased on the Supreme Court ruling in Daubert v.Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.1 The trial courtallowed the testimony and the jury returned a ver-dict in favor of the Clausens for $1.4 million. Uponthe Clausens’ request, the district court awardedthe plaintiffs attorney fees totaling $651,382.30 andexpenses, including expert witness fees, totaling$149,170.05.2 The ship owners appealed.

Admissibility of Expert TestimonyThe defendants argued that the Clausens’ expertwitness’ testimony should not have been allowed

based upon the Supreme Court holding in Daubertand subsequent court interpretation. UnderDaubert, “scientific evidence is deemed reliable[and admissible] if the principles and methodologyused by an expert are grounded in the methods ofscience.”3 Dr. Elston, the Clausens’ expert witness,testified that the toxicity levels in the dead oysterswere caused by the oil spill from the New Carissa.Dr. Elston used a process called differential diag-nosis, which is a “scientific method of identifying amedical problem by eliminating the likely causesuntil the most probable one is isolated.”4 If shownto be reliable, differential diagnosis properly con-ducted is admissible under Daubert. To be reliable,an expert’s chosen cause must be “capable of caus-ing the injury”5 and other alternative causes musthave been rejected “using scientific methods andprocedures.”6 Dr. Elston testified that low-leveltoxic effects of oil were the likely cause of the oys-ter deaths. The defendants argued that this testi-mony was unreliable because the quantity of oilthat causes harm to shellfish has not been scientifi-cally determined.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that precise evi-dence is not needed to show the toxicity of a sub-stance. The court found that, due to the rarity of oilspills, scholarly study is infrequent and incomplete.The lack of published research, however, does notbar Dr. Elston’s testimony. The Ninth Circuit heldthat a conclusion as to the cause of the oyster mor-talities is admissible “without supporting peer-reviewed literature specific to that subject, so longas the expert witness relied upon a variety of objec-tive, verifiable evidence.”7

Attorney Fees The ship owners put forth three arguments in sup-port of their claim that the Oregon Spill Act doesnot provide for an award of attorney fees, no mat-ter the factual outcome. First, the ship ownersclaimed that Oregon adheres to the general con-tractual rule that attorney fees are not awarded asdamages “when sought in the same action inwhich the services were rendered.”8 Second, theship owners argued that “the district court’s inter-pretation of the damages provision fails to giveeffect to all of the words of the statute.”9 Third,they argued that where the legislature intendedshifting attorney fees to exist, it specifically pro-

Page 4 Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar

Carissa, from page 1

Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar Page 5

vided for such fees by statute. The owners claimedthe legislature did not do so in the Oregon SpillAct, and therefore the attorney fees award to theplaintiffs was inappropriate.

The Ninth Circuit addressed the first argu-ment quickly by first acknowledging the generalcontractual rule, but pointed out that the standardexists only in breach of contract actions, not inclaims of this kind. The court also noted that theOregon Spill Act has its own damages provision,which is extremely broad and more inclusive thandamage provisions in other Oregon statutes.

The court dispensed with the second argumentby pointing to the ship owners’ failure to includeall of the language of the Oregon Spill Act in itsargument. The entire section cited by the defen-dants states that damages “include attorneys feesof any kind for which liability may exist under thelaws of this state resulting from, arising out of orrelated to the discharge or threatened discharge ofoil.”10 The defendants interpreted this provision tomean that an award for fees cannot be received inthe same action in which damages are awarded.The court disagreed and stated that fees can beawarded upon a finding of liability under the Actitself or under another law. Since the Act includes aprovision for attorney fees, the award of attorneyfees was appropriate.

Finally, the ship owners argued that when theOregon legislature means to allow fee shifting itdoes so explicitly, unlike in this case where a dam-ages provision was interpreted to provide for theshift. The Ninth Circuit explained that the legisla-ture is not limited in its means of providing for feeshifting. The court acknowledged that attorneyfees are not normally included in damage awards,but, again, emphasized the specific definition ofdamages set forth in the Oregon Spill Act.Recuperation of attorney fees for a successfulplaintiff is explicitly included in the Spill Act’sstatutory definition of damages.

Expert Witness FeesThe ship owners further argue that expert witnessfees are inappropriate in federal court where statelaw governs the distribution of such fees. Thedefense cites Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co. to argue that“federal courts should control the reimbursementof expert witnesses in federal courts sitting in

diversity jurisdiction.”11 The court distinguishesbetween cases of state and federal cost provisionconflicts and the present case, where the conflict isbetween a federal cost provision and a state dam-ages provision. The court concludes that whereplaintiffs have shown they are entitled to recoveryunder the state statute, they are also entitled torecover under that statute’s damages provision andare not governed by federal expert cost provisions.

ConclusionRegarding expert testimony, the court held thatDr. Elston’s conclusion that low–level toxicity ofoil within the bay was the cause of the oysters’deaths was admissible, because his conclusion wassupported by verifiable and objective facts.

As to the attorney fees and expert witness fees,the court concluded that both fees were appropri-ately awarded to the Clausens because the control-ling statutes, the Oregon Spill Act and the FederalOil Pollution Act, contain explicit provisionsallowing for such awards.

ENDNOTES1. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).2. Attorney fees and costs (or expenses) may be

awarded as a part of damages pursuant to theOregon Spill Act (Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 468B.310(1)and 300(6) (2002)). Section 486B.300(6) defines“damages” as “damages, costs, losses, penalties,or attorney fees of any kind for which liabilitymay exist under the laws of this state resultingfrom, arising out of or related to the dischargeor threatened discharge of oil.”

3. Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049,1056 (9th Cir. 2003).

4. Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257,262 (4th Cir. 1999).

5. Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F.Supp.1387, 1413 (D.Or. 1996).

6. Claar v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 29 F.3d 499,502 (9th Cir. 1994).

7. Clausen, 339 F.3d at 1060-61.8. Id. at 1062.9. Id. 10. Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.300(6) (2002).11. Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1168

(9th Cir. 1995).

Page 6 Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar

North Carolina Shellfish Growers Ass’n and NorthCarolina Coastal Fed’n v. Holly Ridge Assocs., LLC,and John A. Elmore , No. 7:01-CV-36-BO(3)(E.D.N.C. filed July 23, 2003).

Jason Savarese, 3L

A federal judge recently ruled that a lawsuit con-cerning the pollution of North Carolina’s shellfishwaters could proceed to trial.

Background In January, 1998, Holly Ridge Associates (HRA)began constructing new ditches, and wideningexisting ones, on a 1,262-acre section of land inOnslow County, North Carolina, known as theMorris Landing Tract (Tract). HRA was attemptingto drain the wetlands and nearby upland areas topermit further development. The land in questionborders waters used to grow shellfish for humanconsumption.

The North Carol ina Shel l f i sh GrowersAssociation (NCSGA), an association of shellfishbusinesses, and the North Carolina CoastalFederation (NCCF), an environmental group, suedthe HRA in February 2002. The plaintiffs claimedHRA’s twelve miles of ditches were draining intoStump Sound, the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway(AIWW), and Cypress Branch, a perennial streamand tributary of Batts Mill Creek. Many of thesewaters support shellfish farms, with more than 130acres of Stump Sound being dedicated to this ven-ture. The drainage reaching these waters hadallegedly been introducing pollutants, the mostdangerous of which is fecal coliform bacteria. Thisbacterium comes from the intestines of warm-blooded animals, and can infect shellfish and causeserious illness or even death when contaminatedshellfish are consumed by humans. NCSGA andNCCF claimed that increased levels of fecal col-iform bacteria had been identified in monitoringdata from Stump Sound, showing a spike in col-iform counts in adjacent waters, allegedly due to theditching and excavation efforts on the Tract.

The plaintiffs claim HRA failed to secure thenecessary Clean Water Act (CWA) permits beforedigging these ditches and polluting nearby shellfishwaters. Section 402 of the CWA requires developersto obtain a permit for the discharge of dredge and fillmaterials into waters of the U.S. and § 404 requires apermit for the filling of wetlands.1 HRA did notobtain either of these permits, claiming the CWA didnot apply to its property, as the wetlands on the Tractwere isolated from the nearby shellfish waters.

Waters of the U.S.In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v.United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159(2001) (SWANNC), the Corps denied a stateagency’s application for a § 404 permit for the cre-ation of a landfill. The U.S. Supreme Court heldthat the Corps had exceeded the scope of its author-ity under the CWA by defining “navigable waters ofthe U.S.” to include intrastate, isolated, non-naviga-ble waters used by migratory birds. The Courtrequired a “significant nexus” between waters ofthe U.S. and the wetland in question in order for theCWA to apply to a water body. Some courts haveread the SWANCC decision to mean the CWA islimited to actual navigable waters or those adjacentto such waters.2 Other courts have held thatSWANCC does not change the traditional jurisdic-tion of the Corps, but controls only in cases involv-ing isolated waters.3

HRA argued that the ditches on its propertywere not draining into waters of the U.S. The court,however, declared Stump Sound, AIWW, CypressBranch, and Batts Mill Creek to be waters of theU.S., and thus HRA’s ditches are subject to permitrequirements under the CWA. The court’s rulingwas based on its determination that a significantnexus exists between the wetlands on the Tract andwaters of the U.S.

The court held that the Corps had jurisdictionover Cypress Branch, which the court found to be atributary of Batts Mill Creek, even though Cypressis separated from Batts by a one-half mile wetlandflat. While Cypress Branch does not have a consis-

North Carolina ShellfishContamination Case Moves Forward

tent flow into Batts, the court stated that it couldhave such a flow after heavy rains. This intermit-tent flow of Cypress Branch would then be capableof carrying pollutants into Batts, and onward toshellfishing areas. Because the court found Batts tobe a water of the U.S., Cypress Branch’s hydrologi-cal connection to Batts meets the “significantnexus” requirement espoused in SWANCC, andsubjects Cypress to the Corps’ jurisdiction underthe CWA. The court stated that when a hydrologi-cal connection exists, even if the waters are milesapart on the surface, a finding of significant nexusis warranted.4

As tributaries of waters of the United States,any ditches on the property flowing into Cypressare subject to the CWA, as are several ditches flow-ing into the Tract’s on-site lake, which also drainsinto the adjacent waters. Because the wetlands andstreams on the Tract fall within the jurisdiction ofthe Corps, HRA’s activities required CWA permits.

ConclusionIn an order issued July 23, 2003, Chief U.S. DistrictJudge Terrence W. Boyle determined that StumpSound, Batts Mill Creek, Cypress Branch, theTract’s lake, and several of its ditches were waters ofthe U.S., covered by the CWA. He also found thatthe Tract’s owners had discharged pollutants and

dredge and fill material into those waters from sev-eral point sources, without first obtaining a permitfrom the Army Corps of Engineers. The judgeallowed two issues to go forward to trial: whetherthe Tract’s owners discharged fecal coliform bacte-ria into the waters and whether the defendants wereexempt from CWA permit requirements under asilvicultural exception.

ENDNOTES1. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342, 1344 (2003).2. See Rice v. Harken Exploration Co., 250 F.3d 264, 269

(5th Cir. 2001); FD & P Enters., Inc. v. United StatesArmy Corps of Engineers, 239 F. Supp. 2d 509, 516(D.N.J. 2002); United States v. RGM Corp., 222 F.Supp. 2d 780, 785-86 (E.D. Va. 2002); United Statesv. Newdunn Assocs., 195 F. Supp. 2d 751, 767-68(E.D. Va. 2002); United States v. Rapanos, 190 F.Supp. 2d 1011, 1015-16 (E.D. Mich. 2002).

3. See Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation Dist., 243F.3d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v.Lamplight Equestrian Center, Inc., 2002 WL 360652,at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2002); United States v. Buday,133 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1292 (D. Mont. 2001).

4. North Carolina Shellfish Growers Ass’n and NorthCarolina Coastal Fed’n v. Holly Ridge Assocs., LLC,and John A. Elmore, No. 7:01-CV-36-BO(3) at 27(E.D.N.C. filed July 23, 2003).

Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar Page 7

The National Sea Grant Law Center is embarking on an exciting newventure, the expansion of SeaNet, the Sea Grant Law and PolicyNetwork. Some of you have been members of SeaNet for years, which hasconsisted of informal meetings and a published directory of colleagues inthe marine law and policy field. The Sea Grant Law Center is revitalizingand expanding SeaNet to provide the network of marine law and policyspecialists with current information and easier access to others in the field.

It is our hope that you will all take advantage of this opportunity to either join or continue your affiliationwith SeaNet. SeaNet is open to anyone working in the marine law and policy field.

The Center Staff will be maintaining a list serve and a web page solely dedicated to SeaNet. Buildingupon the relationships already existing within SeaNet, the new list serve will provide a vehicle for the dis-semination of information, including job opportunities, current research projects, and upcoming confer-ences and meetings. The network will also provide a valuable service to members. Requests for informationcan be sent to a SeaNet email address and a Center staff member will then facilitate the delivery of that mes-sage to the network.

If you are already a member of SeaNet, this is a great time to reaffirm your commitment to the network.If you are not a member, there has never been a better time to join. Great things are in the works for SeaNet.In the near future, the Sea Grant Law Center will be partnering with the Nova Southeastern University LawSchool to provide on-line conferencing and webcasting of special events.

To become a member of SeaNet, simply send us an email at sealaw@olemiss.edu or give us a call at (662)915- 7775. We look forward to hearing from you.

Page 8 Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar

Simon Woodley, S&J Woodley Pty. Ltd.

Simon Woodley is a freelance environmental consultantin marine and coastal ecosystem management, particu-larly tropical marine protected area management.From 1978-1998 he was involved in the establishmentand management of the Great Barrier Reef MarinePark. The views in this paper are his. He can be con-tacted at simon@magwood.com.au .

IntroductionIn 1975 the Australian Government established theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park with specific and

innovative legislation. At the time this was anunprecedented approach to the management ofnatural resources in Australia and the world. Eventoday it is regarded by many as a benchmark forecologically sustainable use of marine resources.

Political and Social ContextThe genesis of the Marine Park can be found in thesocial dynamism of the 1960’s in the Westernworld. Along with the revolutions in thought andpolitical values and the challenge to accepted con-ventions, people were becoming increasingly awareand concerned about environmental issues,

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park -A Bold Experiment

International Coastal Management: Tools for Successful Regional Partnerships and Initiatives

In June, the Sea Grant Law Center, with co-sponsors the Dean Rusk Center at the University of Georgia,the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami, and the CroftCenter for International Studies at the University of Mississippi, hosted a conference on internationalcoastal management in Athens, Georgia. During the two-day conference, speakers and attendees caughtup on recent developments in the field and shared case studies. A wide range of topics was discussedincluding fisheries management, climate change, and the roles of science, politics, and the law. Casestudies were presented from Australia, Belize, Panama, and the United States. The conference was small,providing an excellent opportunity for everyone involved to get to know each other, exchange ideas, andengage in stimulating discussions. Because the presentations given during the conference were simplytoo good to keep to ourselves, the PowerPoint presentations are available on the Law Center’s website athttp://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/conference.html .

Two of the conference speakers graciously provided excerpts of their presentations for us to sharewith you, our readers. Meinhard Doelle’s article, “Climate Change, a Canadian Perspective,” discussesthe anticipated impacts of climate change in Canada and the nation’s struggles since its ratification of theKyoto Protocol. Simon Woodley, in “The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - A Bold Experiment,” describesAustralia’s initial efforts to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

The conference organizers are currently developing a proceedings volume from this conference,which we hope to publish in Spring 2004. Please take a moment to enjoy this exclusive sneak peek!

globally and nationally. Concerned scientists talk-ing or writing publicly about environmentalissues, for example, pesticide use (Carson 1962)and pollution issues (Commoner 1966) fueledthese concerns. The first World Conference onNational Parks held in Seattle in 1962 recom-mended that countries with coastal boundariesshould give priority to the establishment of marineprotected areas (Adams 1962).

At the same time, increased awareness of therichness and beauty of the underwater environ-ment was reaching the living rooms of citizensthrough the technological advances of SCUBA div-ing, underwater films and television. Coinci-dentally, catastrophic marine disasters such as oilwell blowouts at Santa Barbara in 1969 and thebreak-up of the oil tanker Torrey Canyon in theEnglish Channel in 1967 added to unease abouthuman impacts on the marine environment. Onthe Great Barrier Reef, the first recorded outbreakof crown-of-thorns starfish (a coral-eating preda-tor) was found at a popular tourist site in 1965, andwas attributed by some to human impacts.

In Queensland, Australia, a pro-developmentgovernment was intent on expanding investmentin tourism, agriculture (mainly beef cattle andsugar cane in coastal catchments adjacent to theGreat Barrier Reef) and exploiting the State’s min-eral resources. Plans in 1969 to prospect for oil onthe Great Barrier Reef and mine coral reefs forlimestone were the trigger for intense public con-cern and debate in Australia and overseas.

Because of these threats, concerned citizensjoined together in the late 1960’s to form conserva-tion movements and to launch a “Save the Reef ”campaign. Protest rallies were held, bumper stick-ers were printed and politicians lobbied. Scientificorganizations such as the Great Barrier ReefCommittee brought their scientific knowledge tobear on the problem and lobbied vigorously forconservation of the Reef. National media editorial-ized about the need to save the Reef. Trade unionsbecame involved by banning the unloading of shipscarrying oil drilling equipment. The public con-cern eventually became such a political issue thatthe national government of the day and the opposi-tion both pledged to protect the Reef. The highestlevel of public inquiry available in Australia, aRoyal Commission, was established in 1970 to look

into the proposal to drill for oil on the GBR andsubsequently reported that there should be a mora-torium on drilling. The governments of the daysupported this recommendation.

In 1972 a new federal Labor government with asocial democratic reform agenda was elected. Itimmediately set about implementing one of itselectoral promises to establish the Great BarrierReef as a national park. The Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act) was thenpassed in 1975 to put the policy into practice.Although there was bipartisan support for the leg-islation in federal Parliament, it was stronglyresisted by the State of Queensland which felt thatthe federal government was intruding on an area of“States’ rights.”

The Constitutional SettingThere is no specific head of power in the AustralianConstitution that grants the federal governmentthe right to legislate on environmental matterswithin the States, nor to exercise environmentalprotection powers within the three mile territorialsea. The High Court, however, in 1975 upheld theSeas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 that claimednational sovereignty over offshore areas from lowwater. This ruling was derived from the constitu-tional power of the federal government to enterinto treaties and conventions on behalf of thenation; in this case, the international conventionon the continental shelf developed under theUnited Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975The GBRMP Act was innovative and unprecedent-ed in scope and direction. When enacted, the Actwas one of the most powerful on the AustralianGovernment’s statute books. It prevailed, in theevent of conflict, over all other laws of Australia(Federal and State) with the exception of legisla-tion related to defense, the right of innocent pas-sage of shipping and shipping in distress. Ratherthan adopt an approach similar to that of nationalparks on land (nature based recreation and noextractive use) the GBRMP Act took a town plan-ning approach. The GBRMP Act established aFederal statutory authority with sweeping powersto develop a marine park over the whole of theGreat Barrier Reef Region, an area of approximate-

Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar Page 9

See Great Barrier, page 10

Page 10 Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar

Great Barrier, from page 9

ly 350,000 square kilometers (see figure1). Commonwealth or federal power extended tolow water mark on the coast and around the 962islands most of which belonged to the State ofQueensland. The legislators saw that cooperationbetween the federal government and QueenslandState government was essential to be able to planand manage the whole area on an ecologically sus-tainable basis. To attempt to manage the reefs andsurrounding waters without due regard for theactivities that occurred under State jurisdiction(e.g. fisheries and management of islands) wouldhave been costly and inefficient. Co-operation withQueensland was essential and this was mandatedin the legislation, through membership of the gov-erning board and an advisory committee, as well asthrough agreements to provide funding to assist inthe management of the area.

The legislation also established the concept of amulti-use park within which “reasonable use”could co-exist with conservation. The guiding phi-losophy in the legislation was to establish a marine

park while providing for “protection, wise use,understanding and enjoyment.” Spatial zoningplans that provided for a gradation of uses from“general use” to “preservation” were mandated asthe main management tool. Public consultation wasrequired by law. Research, education and day-to-day field management in the form of surveillance,enforcement and education was also mandated.

ConclusionsThe policy and enabling legislation to protect theGreat Barrier Reef was a political response to pub-lic concerns that were based on emotions, percep-tions and values rather than hard science or factsdemonstrating risk to the Reef environment. At thetime, the Great Barrier Reef was relatively lightlyused and in excellent condition overall. The prima-ry threats of oil drilling and extraction of minerals,which were the major trigger for the establishmentof the Marine Park, were immediately dealt with inthe new GBRMP Act by prohibition. This gave thenew management agency, the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority, the time and space toestablish the marine park without the intense usepressures that are characteristic of marine conser-vation efforts in developing countries.

After 25 years of management, the legislativeframework is still the most appropriate for provid-ing for “protection, wise use, understanding andenjoyment” even though the issues that confrontthe managers have changed in scope and intensity.The main issues facing the management agencyand reef users today are ecologically sustainableand economically viable reef-based tourism,improving water quality and the impacts of coastalagriculture and urban development, ecologicallysustainable fishing, conservation of the biodiversi-ty of the Reef at different scales and finding accept-able ways of meeting the rights and aspirations ofindigenous communities.

Although the GBRMP Act provides the frame-work for management, it is not sufficient by itself.Ultimately, changes in human use are needed toensure that the impacts of such use on biodiversityare within sustainable limits. The most lastingchanges occur where reef users accept the need tochange their behavior where it is not compatiblewith the long-term conservation of the Reef.Without community support and co-operation

Figure 1

Meinhard Doelle, Dalhousie Law School

Meinhard Doelle is an Assistant Professor at DalhousieLaw School in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada where heteaches environmental law. He served as ExecutiveDirector of Clean Nova Scotia from 1996 - 2001 and asan advisor on international negotiations on climatechange. Meinhard is currently pursuing a J.S.D. atDalhousie University, with a focus on compliance withMultilateral Environmental Agreements.

Until recently climate change policies in Canadaand the United States were more or less in linewith each other. Both countries have been strug-gling to make reductions at home as a result oftheir heavy reliance on fossil fuels as the majorsource of energy. An abundance of energy since theend of the energy crisis of the 1970’s and the his-torically low energy prices have made conservationand efficiency less attractive in North Americathan in other parts of the world. It is not surpris-ing, therefore, that both countries have economiesthat are very energy intensive. Both Canada andthe United States, at the same time, have begun tofeel the effects of climate change. Finally, bothcountries historically have made significant effortsto reach international agreement on how to addressthis global issue.

At the same time, there have been startling dif-ferences, especially in recent years. Domestically,for example, the United States, in large part as a

result of the leadership roles of states such asCalifornia, has taken considerably more action toreduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions thanCanada to date. On the other hand, the UnitedStates has opted out of the current internationaleffort to develop a global response to this issue, theKyoto Protocol, whereas Canada has consistentlytaken a multilateral approach, and has been anactive player on the international front on this issue.

In terms of climate change impacts, theCanadian arctic is expected to be one of the mostdrastically affected regions in the world, with pre-dictions in average temperature changes in therange of ten degrees or more, completely changingthe ecosystems in the Canadian North. Similarchanges can be expected in Alaska. Other parts ofCanada significantly affected include coastal areas,which can expect sea level rise, increased severeweather events, and changes in ocean currents andtemperatures. One example of a direct humanimpact of climate change in the coastal regions ofCanada is the main transportation link between theprovinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Thepredicted level of sea level rise for this region incombination with expected storm surges is predict-ed to result in frequent flooding of the only rail androad connections between Nova Scotia and the restof Canada.

The overall impact of climate change on coastalecosystems is still not well understood, but recent

Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar Page 11

Climate Change, A Canadian Perspective

(and through it the support of politicians) the tasko f m a n a g i n g t h e R e e f w o u l d b e a l m o s timpossible.

References and Additional Reading• RACHAEL CARSON, SILENT SPRING (Houghton

Mifflin, Boston 1962).

• BARRY COMMONER, SCIENCE AND SURVIVAL (Gollanz,London 1966).

• RICHARD A. KENCHINGTON, MANAGING MARINE

ENVIRONMENTS (Taylor & Young, New York 1992).• DAVID LAWRENCE, RICHARD A. KENCHINGTON, &

SIMON J. WOODLEY, THE GREAT BARRIER REEF -F I N D I N G T H E R I G H T B A L A N C E (MelbourneUniversity Press, Australia 2001).

• N A T I O N A L PA R K S S E R V I C E , F I R S T W O R L D

CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL PARKS: SEATTLE (A.B.Adams ed., 1962).

• JUDITH WRIGHT, THE CORAL BATTLEGROUND

(HarperCollinsPublishers Australia 1996).

• Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority websiteat http:// www.gbrmpa.gov.au .

See Doelle, page 12

collapses of cod and salmon stocks in Canada arethought by some to be caused by changes in watertemperatures. Another region of Canada likely tobe significantly affected is the Canadian prairies,the heart of Canada’s agriculture industry. In thispart of Canada, significant increases in tempera-ture combined with expected decreases in precipi-tation are likely to create new challenges for analready threatened industry. Lack of predictabilityof emerging new weather patterns will make cropselection and planning difficult. Severe droughtsover the past few years have been early warningsigns of what is likely to come.

Canada ratified Kyoto in December 2002, andhas now formally entered the implementationphase. Canada’s implementation plan calls on indi-viduals to reduce their GHG emissions by one tonfor the first commitment period. Large industrialemitters received a number of concessions leadingup to the ratification decision, including a fifty-fivemegaton reduction limit from business as usual,access to domestic and international credits tomeet any targets, a commitment to set targets basedon intensity rather than based on absolute limits,and a commitment from the Canadian governmentto cover any cost above $15 per ton of credit pur-chased by any large emitter to meet its target.Canada is currently in the process of negotiatingcovenants with large emitters. Other measures,especially in the areas of transportation, buildings,and renewable sources of energy, are still underdevelopment. Canada expects to rely significantlyon the use of sinks in meeting its first commitmentperiod target.

Climate change negotiations internationallyhave been more or less stalled since the signing ofthe Marrakech Accords in November 2001. Theinadequacy of developed country targets and theabsence of Australia, the United States, and possi-bly Russia from the process have made it difficultto bring developing countries on board. The U.S.,on the other hand, has indicated its refusal to jointhe process as long as developing countries are notpart of the process in the form of emission reduc-tion targets. The further lack of commitment fromthe industrialized world to assisting developingcountries in any meaningful way with sustainabledevelopment has now created a significant impassein the negotiations.

Canada may have an important role to play infinding a way to bring both sides along to acceler-ate the modest international momentum on GHGemission reductions achieved by bringing Kyotointo force. Now that Kyoto is essentially ready forimplementation by states that have agreed to bebound by it, the process of developing a next steptoward a meaningful international response to cli-mate change is under way, with the focus on how tobring the United States back on board internation-ally, how to make reductions in developed coun-tries meaningful in terms of actually mitigating cli-mate change, and how to prevent emissions indeveloping countries from reaching levels similarto those in developed countries without hamperingtheir right to development.

In the meantime, from a coastal zone manage-ment perspective, it is important to keep in mindthat climate change impacts are not necessarily theonly cause for concern. Certain mitigation mea-sures also have the potential to add stresses andnew challenges to the protection of ocean ecosys-tems. One obvious example of this is the proposalto use enzymes to increase deep sea storage of car-bon. Other mitigation measures that may intro-duce competing uses and possibly add other newchallenges include proposals for offshore windfarms and a renewed interest in tidal power.

Perhaps the most important conclusion of thecurrent state of climate change in Canada andglobally for coastal zone management is that miti-gation is not likely to significantly reduce the riskof climate change in the foreseeable future. Theneed to consider the impacts of climate change oncoastal ecosystems is therefore higher than ever.Managers will not be able to forecast the futurestate of coastal ecosystems based on historical data,including such fundamental issues as sea level,ocean currents, temperatures, precipitation pat-terns and extreme weather events to name a few.The challenge for coastal zone policy makers andmanagers alike will be to facilitate human adapta-tion to changes that can be predicted and to findways to reduce other stresses to give coastal ecosys-tems a better chance at adapting, while supportingefforts at mitigation to slow down the rate ofchange and buy humans and natural ecosystemsthe time needed to adjust to the changes that aretaking place.

Page 12 Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar

Doelle, from page 11

lands to a developer for the construction of a mari-na. In 1996, the Department of Interior assertedU.S. authority over the lands and required thedeveloper to enter into a separate agreement withthe U.S. The Mariana Islands again filed suit.

Submerged LandsUnder the “paramountcy doctrine,” the UnitedStates has paramount authority over the sub-merged lands of coastal states and territories sea-ward of the low water mark.2 This authority can betransferred to a state or territory, but such a trans-fer requires a “clear, express and unequivocalCongressional enactment.”3 For example, in 1953,Congress passed the Submerged Lands Act (SLA).The SLA transferred ownership of submergedlands out to three nautical miles to coastal states.In a similar manner, Guam, the Virgin Islands, andAmerican Samoa gained control over their sub-merged lands through the Territorial SubmergedLands Act.

For the Mariana Islands to claim ownership oftheir submerged lands, Congress must expresslypass ownership to the Commonwealth. That has nothappened yet. Section 101 of the Covenant detail-ing the rights and responsibilities of the U.S. andthe Mariana Islands grants the U.S. complete sover-eignty over the Mariana Islands at the terminationof the Trusteeship Agreement. The Covenant con-tains no express reservation of the Commonwealth’sownership of the submerged lands. Furthermore,Congress has refrained from enacting legislationtransferring ownership of the submerged lands tothe Mariana Islands, indicating an intent to retainownership. The District Court held that until suchlegislation is enacted by Congress, the UnitedStates has paramount authority over the submergedlands of the Mariana Islands.

The StatutesFederal law is “the supreme Law of the Land.”4

State and territorial governments do not have theauthority to legislate with regard to submergedlands without express federal legislation. As men-tioned above, there is no federal legislation grant-ing the Mariana Islands ownership of and sover-eignty over its submerged lands. In addition, theCommonwealth’s statutes are in direct conflictwith several federal laws, including the Magnuson-

Stevens Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct, which asserts a 200-mile EEZ regulatedexclusively by Congress and federal agencies.If valid, the statutes of the Mariana Islandswould nullify any federal law claiming the EEZexclusively for the U.S. The court ruled thatbecause the United States has paramountauthority over the submerged lands and thestatutes are in direct conflict with federal laws,the Commonwealth’s “Submerged Lands Act”and “Marine Sovereignty Act of 1980” are pre-empted and, therefore, unenforceable.

ConclusionThe United States possesses superior rights overthe submerged lands of the Northern MarianaIslands. As a result, Commonwealth statutes claim-ing authority over those lands are pre-empted byexisting U.S. laws.

ENDNOTES1. See Hillblom v. United States of America, 896 F.2d

426, 431 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990) (U.S. assertion offisheries jurisdiction was a lawful exercise offederal authority).

2. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v.U.S., Civil Action No. 99-0028 at 35 (D. N. Mar.I. filed Aug. 7, 2003).

3. Id. at 40.4. U.S. CONST. Art. VI.

Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar Page 13

Submerged, from page 1

Page 14 Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar

Stephanie Showalter, J.D., M.S.E.L.

Dead zones, coral bleaching, fisheries collapses,widespread poaching. Every day it seems humanitydrives another nail into the coffin. In The EmptyOcean, Richard Ellis tracks humanity’s historicassaults on and the current threats to the resourcesof the world’s oceans. Be warned: if you are lookingfor a neutral account of the current state of marineaffairs, this book is not for you. Richard Ellis is apassionate conservationist, whose disbelief athumanity’s apparently insatiable appetite formarine resources is visible on each and every page.However, if you have ever been curious about howshark cartilage became known as a cure for cancer,the emergence of a barndoor skate commercialfishery, or the transformation of the Patagoniantoothfish into Chilean Sea Bass, one of the mostsought-after fish in the world, The Empty Oceanshould be your next purchase.

Richard Ellis spares no detail. His accounts ofthe declines of many species, such as the Stellar seacow, the sea otter, and the sperm whale, start with“first contact” by Europeans, and continue to pre-sent day. From shipwreck survivors reporting theriches of the Bering Sea back to their homelands tofishermen focusing on new prey, the stories alwaysplay out the same way. Overharvesting of a limitedresource leads to scarcity and, in a few cases,extinction. The numbers are astounding. An esti-mated seven million dolphins have been killed dueto interactions with the tuna industry and morethan 5.2 million fur seals were killed by NorthAmerican sealers alone. Encountering those kindsof numbers in almost every fishery, it was easy toaccept the initial belief of fisherman, whalers, andsealers that the ocean’s bounty was inexhaustible.

Despite the tolls taken by fishing, whaling,sealing, and pollution, not all hope is lost. Theecosystems of the oceans are amazing and often,when left alone or with a little help, marineresources have the ability to return from the brinkof disaster. Whenever possible, Ellis includes suc-cess stories. Here are just a few covered by Ellis: therebounding of southern elephant seal populations;the recovery of the sea urchin, Diadema, in Jamaica;the survival of the fur seals; and the reduction ofdolphin takes associated with the tuna fishery inthe Eastern Tropical Pacific.

The Empty Ocean is more than a history book.Interspersed with references to scientific reportsand eyewitness journals, are literary referencesrevealing the important role played by the oceansin the lives of many of the world’s great writers.Quotes from Jack London’s Sea Wolf, HermanMelville’s Moby Dick, and Rudyard Kipling’s JungleBook add a unique dimension to what could havebeen a dry, depressing dissertation filled with pop-ulation estimates and scientific names. Furtherenhanced with illustrations by the author himself,The Empty Ocean is a worthy addition to anyone’sbookshelf.

Richard Ellis is a Research Associate at theAmerican Museum of Natural History. He servedas a member of the American delegation to theInternational Whaling Commission from 1980 to1990 and is the author of many books, includingMonsters of the Sea, The Search for the Giant Squid,and Aquagensis.

Book ReviewThe Empty Ocean

Richard Ellis • Island Press 2003

The Bush Administration’s plan to drill for oil in ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, has beenrepeatedly blocked by Congress. Not one to give up, the Administration has set its sights offshore. TheMineral Management Service recently announced a new plan to offer eight oil and gas lease sales in fed-eral waters offshore of Alaska over the next five years. First up, 9.4 million acres in the Beaufort Seaoffered on September 24, 2003. Then in May 2004, federal areas of Cook Inlet are up for grabs.

You hear it all the time. The ocean is big. That concept is hard to getyour mind around, however, until something like this comes acrossthe news ticker. Scientists have discovered a new volcano in Alaska’sAleutian Islands. Located near the Amchitka Pass, the volcano rises1,903 feet above the sea floor, but is still 377 feet from the surface.Classified as active, but dormant, the volcano could blow at any time,potentially creating a new island in the Aleutian chain. How do youmiss something like that?

Around the Globe . . .

While not a total failure, the highly publicized experiment to returna captive killer whale to the wild is struggling, most notably with anorca who refuses to embrace his new-found freedom. Held in captivi-ty from1979-1998, Keiko, the star of the film Free Willy, was“released” in July 2002. Keiko now resides along the Norwegian coastand appears reluctant to leave his trainers and visitors. The few timesKeiko has ventured out on his own, he has gotten into trouble, visit-ing a nearby fish farm, much to the dismay of the farmers, and pan-icking while trying to swim under an ice pack. It makes one wonderwhether his supporters are trying too hard to make a Hollywood storycome to life and if Keiko will ever be ready to return to the wild.

In September, over 100 scientists met at Cambridge University in England toaddress the flooding of Venice. Organized by Venice in Peril, a British orga-nization for the preservation of Venice, this meeting was the first interna-tional conference on the issue since 1969. Although it is hard to believe thatVenetians would have a problem with water, with annual flooding eventsincreasing ten-fold since 1900, the Adriatic Sea on the rise, climate change,and the fact that the city itself is sinking, they are understandably nervous.Conference organizers hoped the conference would also facilitate discus-sions regarding the problems facing other coastal areas around the world.For more information about the problems in Venice and the conference, visithttp://www.veniceinperil/org .

Volume 2, No. 3 The SandBar Page 15

Photo courtesy of Naval Meteorology andOceanography Command

Photo courtesy of NOAA

Sea Grant Law CenterKinard Hall, Wing E, Room 262P.O. Box 1848University, MS 38677-1848

THE SANDBAR

THE SANDBAR is a result of research sponsored inpart by the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, U.S. Department of Commerce,under Grant Number NA16RG2258, the SeaGrant Law Center, Mississippi Law ResearchInstitute, and University of Mississippi LawCenter. The U.S. Government and the Sea GrantCollege Program are authorized to produce anddistribute reprints notwithstanding any copy-right notation that may appear hereon. Theviews expressed herein are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views ofNOAA or any of its sub-agencies. Graphics by©Corel Gallery, © Nova Development Corp.,and NOAA.

The University of Mississippicomplies with all applicable lawsregarding affirmative action andequal opportunity in all its activi-ties and programs and does notdiscriminate against anyone pro-tected by law because of age, creed,

color, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veter-an or other status.

MASGP 03-010-03This publication is printed on recycled paper.

Editor: Stephanie Showalter, J.D., M.S.E.L.

Publication Design: Waurene Roberson

Research Associates: Leah Huffstatler, 2LJoseph M. Long 3LJason Savarese, 3L

Contributors: Meinhard Doelle, Dalhousie Law SchoolSimon Woodley, S&J Woodley Pty. Ltd.

THE SANDBAR is a quar-terly publication reportingon legal issues affectingthe U.S. oceans and coasts.I t s goa l i s to increaseawareness and under-standing of coastal prob-lems and issues. To sub-scribe to THE SANDBAR,contact: the Sea Grant Law

Center, Kinard Hall, Wing E, Room 262, P.O. Box 1848,University, MS, 38677-1848, phone: (662) 915-7775, orcontact us via e-mail at: sealaw@olemiss.edu . We wel-come suggestions for topics you would like to see cov-ered in THE SANDBAR.