Skip to content

Category: Coastal Management

Published on
Photo by Jacob Mathers on Unsplash.

Representative Jesse Petrea has introduced state legislation (HB 748) that will shift the burden of proof to the State when landowners wish to assert ownership rights to coastal marshlands.

Common law public trust doctrine holds that the lands regularly submerged by the ebb and flow of the tide are owned by the State and held in trust for the benefit of the people. In 1981, the Georgia legislature codified this principle in the Protection of Tidewaters Act which establishes the State of Georgia as the owner of the beds of all tidewaters within the State, except where private title can be traced to a valid British Crown or State land grant.

It is appropriately difficult for property owners to successfully produce the documentation needed to trace an unbroken chain of title to a Crown or State grant.  Most of these grants date back to as far as 250 years ago when Georgia was a British colony. Among the requirements for proving ownership status, the grants must still exist, be legible, and must specifically convey tidewaters. Most Crown grants were subject to stipulations such as the cultivation of rice, mandating that the property reverts to the Crown if grantees should fail to adhere to the terms.

Currently, marsh-front property owners can petition the State to recognize their ownership of marshlands by submitting supporting documents to the Georgia Department of Law for official verification.  HB 748 would place an arbitrary 60-day time limit on the Attorney General to verify the claims. If the Attorney General cannot decide within this short period, the law would consider the claim valid by default putting the onus on the State to prove in court that the petitioner does not own public trust marshland. 

Passing this bill would hamper the State’s ability to employ necessary due diligence in evaluating claims affecting public trust lands, thus increasing the likelihood of dubious claims succeeding.

Some might wonder if unleashing a potential land grab of Georgia’s coastal marshlands matters since Crown grant marshlands are covered by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (CMPA).  It matters if a constituency of private landholders grows large enough to successfully lobby for policy changes that weaken environmental regulations perceived to impinge on their property rights.     

...continue reading "Why a Bill Expediting Private Ownership of Georgia’s Salt Marsh is a Bad Idea"

Published on

On June 17, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recommending the issuance of a rocket launch site operator’s license to Camden County. The last step in the process is for the FAA to release a Record of Decision (ROD) expected sometime this month. The Center sent the following letter condemning fundamental flaws in the environmental review that the FAA should correct by conducting a Supplemental EIS before making a decision. You can read the entire EIS online at the FAA's website.

Antares rocket failure October 28, 2014.

General Wayne Monteith, FAA Administrator

Associate Administrator FAA/AST

800 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20591

General Monteith:

I am writing to restate and expand upon concerns previously conveyed in our comments, and others, expressing well-justified alarm about glaring deficiencies in FAA’s review of Spaceport Camden.

For the sake of brevity, in these comments, I will limit remarks to four prominent areas of factual negligence and faulty assumptions related to the EIS that are both careless and misleading.

1.       Launch trajectory and hypothetical rocket characteristics – According to the most qualified opinions available, the launch trajectory proposed is implausible if not impossible to deliver payload in achieving a viable orbital mission. It appears that the manipulated launch-angle used in the EIS, and consequentially applied in the state’s consistency review, was improperly assumed for the convenience of attempting to reduce the hazard-zone for a launch failure during the initial stages immediately after launch. The misguided nature of this proposal is revealed by the absence of any precedent for small rockets using such an angle of trajectory to support the attainment of an orbital mission. Please clarify if and when such a small-rocket orbital launch has ever been done successfully, or if the notion is just theoretical conjecture.

Regarding the small size of the hypothetical rocket, why does the EIS describe storage at the site for what amounts to some 28 years of small-rocket fuel supply? This strongly suggests the hidden intention to transition to the use of larger rockets that require far more fuel, once licensing is obtained for a site approved based on a fantasized small rocket allegedly having smaller risks.

...continue reading "Letter to FAA Outlining Defects in Review of Spaceport Camden"

Published on

March 8 was the deadline for Georgians to comment on a justifiably controversial project proposed in Camden County, known as "Spaceport Camden." If approved, this spaceport would be the only such facility in the U.S. ever sanctioned to launch rockets over privately owned and occupied property. Moreover, the "hazard zone" for launching includes the world-renowned Cumberland Island National Seashore, part of which is a federally designated Wilderness Area.

Since 1997, under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been authorized to review major federal permits to determine if they are consistent with Georgia's Coastal Management Program. DNR's Coastal Resources Division (CRD) is currently engaged in evaluating Spaceport Camden.

Accordingly, CRD invited public comments on the agency's proposal to issue Coastal Consistency Certification. If certified by CRD/DNR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which administers spaceports under U.S. law, would have to decide whether to license Spaceport Camden. Most agree that without state certification, FAA would be less likely to grant the license. 

As objectionable as the project certainly is for jeopardizing humans, wildlife, valuable homesites, tourism destinations, and rare natural resources, there is a less apparent but closely related reason to oppose the spaceport - the appalling lack of detailed information to evaluate such risks responsibly. After years of unsubstantiated claims about the spaceport's benefits, compounded by incomplete, contradictory, and illogical review of the project, fundamental questions remain unanswered.

For instance:

...continue reading "Why DNR Should Give Spaceport Camden a Thumbs Down"