Introduction

The United States Supreme Court's decision in State of New Jersey v. State of Delaware, 552 U.S. 597 (2008), marks a significant development in the interpretation of interstate compacts and state jurisdiction over shared waterways. This case revisited longstanding disputes between New Jersey and Delaware concerning the regulatory authority over the Delaware River, specifically focusing on the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) unloading terminal projected to extend into Delaware's territory. The crux of the dispute centered around whether New Jersey held exclusive regulatory authority over riparian structures extending from its shores into Delaware territory, as per the 1905 Compact, or whether Delaware retained overlapping jurisdiction within its sovereign waters.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that Article VII of the 1905 Compact between New Jersey and Delaware did not confer exclusive jurisdiction to New Jersey over riparian improvements extending into Delaware's territory. Instead, both states possess overlapping regulatory authorities within the twelve-mile jurisdictional boundary centered on New Castle, Delaware. Specifically, while New Jersey may regulate ordinary and usual riparian activities, Delaware retains the authority to regulate or prohibit structures and operations of "extraordinary character" within its sovereign waters. Consequently, Delaware law prevailed in denying permission for the construction of the proposed LNG terminal, as it was deemed to exceed ordinary riparian uses.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced historical agreements and prior judicial decisions to interpret the 1905 Compact. Notably:

• NEW JERSEY v. DELAWARE II, 291 U.S. 361 (1934): Established Delaware's ownership of the river and subaqueous soil within the twelve-mile circle up to the low-water mark on the New Jersey side.
• VIRGINIA v. MARYLAND, 540 U.S. 56 (2003): Affirmed that a state owning a riverbed retains sovereign authority to regulate constructions extending into its waters, even if such constructions originate from another state's side.
• 1834 New Jersey-New York Compact: Provided a comparative framework, showcasing that explicit language regarding exclusive jurisdiction is necessary to confer such authority.

These precedents collectively underscored the necessity for clear, express terms within interstate agreements to allocate exclusive jurisdiction, rather than assuming broad or exclusive powers without explicit language.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on a meticulous interpretation of the terms used in the 1905 Compact, particularly the phrase "riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature" in Article VII. The Court determined that "riparian jurisdiction" was a non-exclusive jurisdictional grant, especially when juxtaposed with the more explicit "exclusive jurisdiction" terms found in other parts of the Compact and in the 1834 NJ-NY Compact.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the importance of harmonizing the Compact with the boundary determination of NEW JERSEY v. DELAWARE II, ensuring that New Jersey's regulatory authority did not infringe upon Delaware's sovereignty within its defined territorial limits. The Court further acknowledged Delaware's consistent regulatory actions post-1905 and its collaboration with New Jersey in coastal management, reinforcing the notion of overlapping jurisdiction rather than exclusivity.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for interstate relations and the governance of shared natural resources. Key impacts include:

• Interstate Compacts Interpretation: Reinforces that interstate agreements must clearly delineate exclusive jurisdictions, and ambiguous terms will not be presumed to grant exclusivity.
• State Regulatory Authority: Affirms that states retain sovereign regulatory powers within their territories, even when other states have riparian rights extending into those territories.
• Environmental and Industrial Regulation: Sets a precedent for states to regulate industrial projects within their sovereign waters, ensuring environmental protection and adherence to state-specific regulations.
• Future Disputes: Provides a framework for resolving similar jurisdictional disputes between states, emphasizing the necessity for explicit terms in compacts and the role of historical conduct in interpreting agreements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Riparian Jurisdiction: Refers to the rights and authority that a state holds over the use and management of land adjacent to a watercourse. This includes the ability to regulate activities such as building piers, wharves, and other structures that extend into the water.

Low-Water Mark: The point on the shoreline reached by the lowest tide of the spring tide. It serves as a boundary marker determining the extent of a state's territorial waters and regulatory authority.

Exclusive Jurisdiction: Complete authority granted to one party, excluding any overlapping claims by another. In this context, it would mean one state solely governs all riparian activities without interference from the other.

Overlapping Jurisdiction: When two or more authorities have concurrent powers over the same area or activities. Here, both New Jersey and Delaware can regulate certain aspects of riparian structures within the twelve-mile boundary.