RI Bill for Access To Shoreline

[Carl]

R.I. Bill Would Guarantee Access To Shoreline
By Katie Warchut

Published on 3/24/2006 12:00:00 AM in Region » Region News

Westerly –– State Rep. Matthew J. McHugh started getting complaints from beach-goers last summer. They wanted to take a walk along their shoreline, but were stopped by signs that said “Keep Out, Private Property,” and “No Trespassing.”

McHugh, a Wakefield Democrat who represents South Kingstown, Charlestown, New Shoreham and Westerly, said he wants to protect the constitutionally guaranteed right of Ocean State residents and tourists to access the shore.

He is co-sponsoring a bill, with Rep. Peter T. Ginaitt, D-Warwick, that would better define the beach area. The state Constitution says people shall enjoy fishing and swimming rights, in addition to passage along the shore, but does not define what “the shore” is.

The proposed bill defines it as a 10-foot wide strip of sand above the high tide line, even if the land is deeded privately.

“The intent is to be able to freely walk, without having to wade into the water,” McHugh said, because property owners “don't own the actual beach.”

It would also authorize the Coastal Resource Management Council to require landowners to remove any obstacles they have to build to keep the public off their property.

Those barriers include fences, walls, or riprap, which are boulders put in the ocean, McHugh said.

When the complaints came in, specifically at Matunuck and Green Hill beaches in South Kingstown, McHugh said he contacted CRMC to investigate the obstacles. They were reluctant, however, because of a fear of lawsuits from private property owners, he said.

McHugh decided to strengthen the law, because beach access is a “longstanding tradition” in the state, he said.

In Westerly, there are at least 12 rights-of-way onto beaches designated by the state Department of Environmental Management, said Town Manager Joseph T. Turo. There have been complaints in the past, but they haven't been from the public, he said.

“The property owners say there's too much access,” he said. “I have not seen anyone preventing passage.”

McHugh's bill was presented at a hearing before the House Environmental and Natural Resources Committee last week, and has been continued.
_____________

I wonder if this will have any effect. Whadaya think?

[cheferson]

[samurai fisherm]

Let's hope it does some good. Most property owners aren't that bad, but some are militant about keeping people off "their beach". There ought to be quite the outcry from some of the rich property owners along the beaches here. I also hope it improves access to the beaches. Getting out to the jetty a Quonny is like a stealthy military excercise at times.

["uffah!!"]

I'm not one for drawing things up, but, If someone could make up a partition or something, I'll diffinitly be one of the first to sign it..With the amount of people in this organization, maybe we can make a difference...

[Pete_G]

10 feet above the high water mark is an aggressive move. It would be incredible though.

DZ, who do we need to write or email in support of this?

[SeaWolf]

it wll be nice to see, but there will undoubtedly be people that object to people walking on their property, which it may be. the law is supposed to (as far as my understanding) allow walking thru their property and not stopping to sit on the beach or fish. the 10' would be above the current high water line, be it high tide or low tide and is not to be confused w/ the often challenge ri law on mean high water mark. i thought this was due to go into the next assembly discussion, but i could be wrong.

[stripersnipr]

At this point identifying any opposing legislators and applying some pressure to them to change their position would be very worthwhile.

[Fishpart]

I am told that if one of our elected servants gets SIX calls on an issue, they consider that issue very critical....

RI Residents call your State Rep and Senator.... DO IT NOW!!!! http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Scripts/email/LegEmail.asp

Imagine that SIX calls consitiutes a crisis no wonder these guys and gals get away with what they do WE their BOSSES aren't watching them....

[JohnR]

Good point Ed!

Hmmm, we need to get more involved in this one, eh??

[Mike P]

Just a caution---if this bill passes, a court challenge from shorefront landowners is virtually a certainty.

Some years ago, the Mass Legislature considered a bill that expanded the long-standing "right of passage" in the intertidal zone (ie, between mean high and low water). In Mass, a shorefront property owner has title to the mean low water mark. However, from ancient Colonial times, there has also been a right of passage between high and low water for purposes of fishing, waterfowling and portage. The bill would have expanded this right of passage to the general public, for any purpose. Before the bill could be voted on, a court challenge to it was instituted, as Mass allowed, at the time, for courts to issue what are called "advisory opinions" in certain circumstances. The challenge went all the way to the Mass Supreme Judicial Court, which held that it would be a "taking" of private property, under eminent domain, for public purposes and required compensation to the landowners. The bill was never enacted.

However, as I understand it, Maine, which has identical property laws to Mass, did successfully enact a bill giving the public at large a right of passage, that survived a court challenge.

Your mileage in Rhody may vary. As I understand it, RI adheres to the general US and English rule that a landowner owns to the mean high water mark. Redifining the "shore" as beginning 10' landward of high water might be considered a "taking" of 10' of property from the landowner for public purposes. Or it might not.

[Young Salt]

you bet the'll challenge it...........crying bloody murder as if were the end of the world. would take alot of pressure on our side for it to get it to pass.

There is another bill trying to provide parking for the 220 CRMC row in the state. That one, im told, stands a better chance at passing.

Yes, in RI we have access to mean high water. The only problem is defining where that point actually is. Basicly if you're close to the water at anything other than moon high tide you should be a-ok. Even if someone complains, the have no way to prove you were 11 feet above mean high tide.
Of course they'll try to take away the parking in the area, which right now is unprotected, and the #1 access killer.

[Young Salt]

read the bills here. The changes are highlighted.


http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillTex...xt06/H7317.pdf

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillTex...xt06/H7700.pdf

[Young Salt]

can someone post how to track a bill?



The sec. of state=matt brown website hasn't been updated since '04........guess someone's too buy doing his campain laundry

[Springtides]

Here is the link to the tracking page:

http://dirac.rilin.state.ri.us/BillStatus/webclass1.asp

First click on Bill status/history.
Then next to the box that says number type the four digits. seperated by a comma if more than one bill is entered.

It is the second year for 7700 and the first year for 7317. Right now the cities and towns have a problem with 7700 but a compromise is in the works. It may take a while for these to pass maybe years but we're on it. Steve M at RISSA is aware of the bills and was at the meetings.

[ThrowingTimber]

We should def. get behind this one.

[Young Salt]

bump

[Skitterpop]

C`mon honey we`re moving to Rhode Island.


Nice!

[Joe]

I think one of these days some unlucky property owner is gonna make the mistake of asserting their rights to a just-back-from-the-sh_t guardsman who's been dying to fish for three years.

[piemma]

I think if the S-B.com crowd got behind this it would make somwhat of a difference. I am certain RISAA is behind it. Bob Moeller is the Chairman of the RISAA public access committee. I beleive he frequents the Board.