This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
Home » Water Boundaries: The Effects of Artificially Induced Changes to the Shoreline.
For my next few articles I plan to launch an exploration of water boundary doctrines. In the nine years that I have been writing this column, I have addressed individual water boundary issues five separate times: April-May 1990 (apportionment of accretion); February-March 1991 (definition of ordinary high water); December 1995-January 1996 (Madison v. Basart doctrine); June 1996 (construction of deed calls to water boundaries) and October 1997 (United States v. Alaska). I will not revisit those issues for this series, except in so far as they come up in cases on other topics (which they surely will, for water boundary cases are always complex). I cannot give you an advance look at how I will attempt to outline the water boundary area, because at this point I don't have a clue where this trip will lead.
For this first chapter, I will address artificially induced shoreline changes and their effects on water boundaries and property rights in general. This beginning gives me a chance to review the recently concluded dispute between New York and New Jersey concerning jurisdiction over Ellis Island, a fascinating case in its own right. As I examine these cases I will branch out to topics important to the cases but not necessarily central to the theme of the article, because-again-every water boundary case seems to cover a myriad of property issues.