State v. State, 134

Citation2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4493,76 USLW 4174,552 U.S. 597,21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 144,170 L.Ed.2d 315,08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3692,128 S.Ct. 1410
Decision Date31 March 2008
Docket NumberNo. 134,Orig.,134
PartiesState of NEW JERSEY, Petitioner, v. State of DELAWARE.
CourtUnited States Supreme Court


Syllabus *

This is the third original action between New Jersey and Delaware involving the boundary along the Delaware River (or River) separating the two States. The first action was settled by a compact the two States approved in 1905, and Congress ratified in 1907 (1905 Compact or Compact). See New Jersey v. Delaware, 205 U.S. 550, 27 S.Ct. 793, 51 L.Ed. 925 (New Jersey v. Delaware I). The 1905 Compact addressed fishing rights but did not define the interstate boundary line. Two provisions of the Compact sowed the seeds for further litigation. Article VII provided: “Each State may, on its own side of the river, continue to exercise riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature.” But Article VIII added: “Nothing herein ... shall affect the territorial limits, rights, or jurisdiction of either State of, in, or over the Delaware River, or the ownership of the subaqueous soil thereof, except as herein expressly set forth.” The second action, resolved by this Court in 1934, conclusively determined the location of the interstate boundary: Delaware owned “the river and the subaqueous soil” within a twelve-mile circle centered on New Castle, Del., “up to [the] low water mark on the easterly or New Jersey side”; south of the twelve-mile circle, the middle of the River's main ship channel marked the boundary. New Jersey v. Delaware II, 291 U.S. 361, 385, 54 S.Ct. 407, 78 L.Ed. 847.

The current controversy was sparked by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control's (DNREC) refusal to grant British Petroleum permission to construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) unloading terminal projected to extend beyond New Jersey's shore some 2,000 feet into Delaware territory. DNREC determined that, under Delaware's Costal Zone Act (DCZA), the proposed terminal would be an “offshore bulk product transfer facilit[y] as well as a “heavy industry use,” both prohibited by the Act. New Jersey commenced this action, seeking a declaration that Article VII of the 1905 Compact gave it exclusive regulatory authority over all projects appurtenant to its shores, including wharves extending past the low-water mark on New Jersey's side into Delaware territory. Delaware's answer asserted that, under, inter alia, Article VIII of the Compact and New Jersey v. Delaware II, it had regulatory authority, undiminished by Article VII, over structures located within its borders. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Special Master filed a report recommending a determination by this Court that the “riparian jurisdiction” preserved to New Jersey by Article VII is not exclusive and that Delaware has overlapping jurisdiction, within the twelve-mile circle, to regulate improvements outshore of the low-water mark on the New Jersey side of the River. New Jersey filed exceptions.

Held: Article VII of the 1905 Compact did not secure to New Jersey exclusive jurisdiction over all riparian improvements commencing on its shores; New Jersey and Delaware have overlapping authority to regulate riparian structures and operations of extraordinary character extending outshore of New Jersey's domain into territory over which Delaware is sovereign. Pp. 1419 – 1427.

(a) The Court rejects New Jersey's argument that Article VII, which accords each State “riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature,” bars Delaware from any encroachment upon New Jersey's authority over improvements extending from New Jersey's shore. Pp. 1419 – 1423.

(1) The novel term “riparian jurisdiction,” as used in Article VII, is properly read as a limiting modifier and does not mean “exclusive jurisdiction.” [R]iparian jurisdiction” has never been a legal term of art, and appears to be a verbal formulation the 1905 Compact negotiators devised specifically for Article VII. Elsewhere in the 1905 Compact—most notably, in Article VIII—the more familiar term “jurisdiction” or “exclusive jurisdiction” appears. Attributing to “riparian jurisdiction” the same meaning as “jurisdiction” unmodified, or equating the novel term with the formulation “exclusive jurisdiction,” would deny operative effect to each word in the Compact. See United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538–539, 75 S.Ct. 513, 99 L.Ed. 615. Presumably drafted in recognition of the still-unresolved boundary dispute, Article VIII requires an express statement in the Compact in order to “affect the territorial ... jurisdiction of either State ... over the Delaware River.” The Court resists reading the uncommon term “riparian jurisdiction,” even when aggrandized by the phrase “of every kind and nature,” as effectuating a transfer to New Jersey of Delaware's entire “territorial ... jurisdiction ... over [the portion of] the Delaware River [in question].” Pp. 1420 – 1421.

(2) A riparian landowner ordinarily enjoys the right to build a wharf to access navigable waters far enough to permit the loading and unloading of ships. But that right, New Jersey agrees, is subject to state regulation for the protection of the public. New Jersey sees itself, however, as the only State empowered to regulate, for the benefit of the public, New Jersey landowners' exercise of riparian rights. Commonly, the State that grants riparian rights also has regulatory authority over their exercise. But the 1905 Compact's negotiators faced an unusual situation: As long as the boundary issue remained unsettled, they could not know which State was sovereign within the twelve-mile circle beyond New Jersey's shore. They likely knew, however, that [t]he rights of a riparian owner [seeking to wharf out into] a navigable stream ... are governed by the law of the state in which the stream is situated.” Weems Steamboat Co. of Baltimore v. People's Steamboat Co., 214 U.S. 345, 355, 29 S.Ct. 661, 53 L.Ed. 1024. With the sovereignty issue reserved by the 1905 Compact for another day, it is difficult to gainsay the Special Master's conclusion that Article VII's reference to “riparian jurisdiction” did not mean “exclusive jurisdiction.” Endeavoring to harmonize Article VII with the boundary determination, the Special Master concluded that Article VII's preservation to each State of “ riparian jurisdiction” gave New Jersey control of the riparian rights ordinarily and usually enjoyed by landowners on New Jersey's shore. But once the boundary line at low water is passed, the Special Master further concluded, New Jersey's regulatory authority is qualified. Just as New Jersey cannot grant land belonging to Delaware, New Jersey cannot authorize activities that go beyond the exercise of ordinary and usual riparian rights in the face of contrary regulation by Delaware. Pp. 1421 – 1424.

(b) An 1834 compact between New Jersey and New York establishing the two States' common Hudson River boundary casts informative light on the 1905 New Jersey–Delaware Compact. Similar to the boundary settled in New Jersey v. Delaware II, the 1834 accord located the New Jersey–New York boundary at “the low water-mark on the ... New Jersey side [of the Hudson River,] 4 Stat. 710. Unlike the 1905 Compact, however, the 1834 agreement expressly gave New Jersey “the exclusive right of property in and to ... land under water” and the exclusive jurisdiction of and over the wharves, docks, and improvements ... on the shore of the said state ...,” ibid. (emphasis added). Comparable language is noticeably absent in Article VII of the 1905 Compact, while other provisions of the Compact appear to have been adopted almost verbatim from the 1834 New Jersey–New York accord. New Jersey, therefore, could hardly claim ignorance that Article VII could have been but was not drafted to grant it “exclusive jurisdiction” (not merely “riparian jurisdiction”) over wharves and other improvements extending from its shore into navigable waters. Pp. 1423 – 1424.

(c) Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 56, 75, 124 S.Ct. 598, 157 L.Ed.2d 461—in which this Court held that a Maryland–Virginia boundary settlement gave Virginia “sovereign authority, free from regulation by Maryland, to build improvements appurtenant to [Virginia's] shore and to withdraw water from the [Potomac] River”—provides scant support for New Jersey's claim. As the Special Master explained, the result in Virginia v. Maryland turned on the unique language of the 1785 compact and 1877 arbitration award there involved. The 1785 compact addressed only “the right [of the citizens of each State] to build wharves and improvements regardless of which State ultimately was determined to be sovereign over the River,” id., at 69, 124 S.Ct. 598. Concerning the States themselves, the 1877 arbitration award that settled the boundary was definitive. See id., at 75, 124 S.Ct. 598. By recognizing in that award Virginia's right, qua sovereign,” “to use the River beyond low-water mark,” id., at 72, 124 S.Ct. 598, the arbitrators manifested their intention to safeguard Virginia's authority to construct riparian improvements outshore of the low-water mark free from regulation by Maryland. By contrast, neither the 1905 Compact nor New Jersey v. Delaware II purported to give New Jersey all regulatory oversight (as opposed to only “riparian jurisdiction”). Pp. 1424 – 1425.

(d) Delaware's claim to regulatory authority is further supported by New Jersey's acceptance (until the present controversy) of Delaware's jurisdiction over water and land within its domain to preserve the quality and prevent deterioration of its coastal areas. When New Jersey sought federal approval for its coastal management program, it made the representation—fundamentally inconsistent with its position here—that any New Jersey project extending beyond mean low water within the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 13–1876
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 15 Septiembre 2016
    ...What determines the scope of the right to bear arms are the “historical justifications” that gave birth to it. Heller , 552 U.S. at 635, 128 S.Ct. 1410. Our common law heritage has long recognized that mental illness is not a permanent condition. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *304–......
  • RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION v. Schwarzenegger, 08-55809
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 20 Abril 2010 their meaning, and to choose apt words in which to embody the purposes of the high contracting parties." New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597, 615-16, 128 S.Ct. 1410, 170 L.Ed.2d 315 (2008) (quotation marks As a sovereign (a state) negotiating a compact with another sovereign (an In......
  • State Of N.Y. v. Atl. States Marine Fisheries Comm'n, Docket No. 09-1594-cv.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 29 Junio 2010 express their meaning, and to choose apt words in which to embody the purposes of the ... contracting parties.” New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597, 615-16, 128 S.Ct. 1410, 170 L.Ed.2d 315 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore decline to find that ASMFC is anything oth......
  • Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co., CIV 17–0260 JB/JHR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 10 Enero 2018
    ...rule" that "all persons are charged with knowledge of the law." MTD at 13 (citing 284 F.Supp.3d 1201 New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597, 621 n.20, 128 S.Ct. 1410, 170 L.Ed.2d 315 (2008) ; City of Aztec v. Groh, No. 29,951, 2010 WL 4162051, *1 (N.M. Ct. App. May 25, 2010) (unpublished)). F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 33-2, January 2021
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...disputes have involved recourse to specialized doctrines for dealing with hyper-litigious parties. See, e.g., New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597, 603–06 (2008) (reviewing two prior iterations of same boundary dispute then pending to narrow what could be contested); New Hampshire v. Maine,......
  • Interstate Water Pollution, Federal Common Law, and the Clean Water Act
    • United States
    • The Clean Water Act and the Constitution. Legal Structure and the Public's Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment Part I
    • 20 Abril 2009
    ...or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever. “ 12 8. See, e.g. , New Jersey v. Delaware, __U.S.__ , 128 S. Ct. 1410 (2008) (resolving an interstate dispute over regulatory authority on riparian lands along the Delaware River). 9. 180 U.S. 208 (1901). 10. Id......
    • United States
    • Columbia Journal of Gender and Law Vol. 42 No. 2, March 2022
    • 22 Marzo 2022
    ...F.3d 723, 728 (6th Cir. 2012). But "a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one." Gall, 552 U.S. at 597. In the spirit of advocating for a real utopia, this Note must at least note the discretion of judges to sentence outside of the Sentencing ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT