Massachusetts State House\
Office of the Governor\
Office of the Lt. Governor\
Room 360\
Boston, MA 02133

Hello Governor Patrick and thank you taking the time to read my letter.

The short version for me writing you. "All beaches should RETURN to
public use up to the mean high tide level with reasonable dry sand use
and reasonable access with parking".

I say "return" to public use, because in 1640 the legislators gave away
high tide use to private land holders in exchange for building wharfs.
(Are private beach owners still building wharfs?)

It is time to return the beaches to the public as "The Public Doctrine"
has spell out long before 1640. As a lawyer yourself I'm sure you will
understand the Doctrine better than I. Most beaches in Massachuttes are
private and with more people today looking to go to the beach to relax
it make for over crowding. Massachuttes and Maine are the only 2 states
to use the mean low tide to determine where the public may use the
beach. By using the mean low tide vs. the mean high tide you basically
exclude the public from using most of the ocean off of Massachusetts.
The other area that restricts public access to beaches is developments
along beach fronts. Even if the beach is public many developments block
parking and access to the beaches.

As a resident of Massachuttes I am asking you the Governor of
Massachusetts to work with the legislators to repeal the 1640 law and
return all beaches to the public.

Side note: I am not a fan of former Governor Romney, 100 years from
today the one thing he will be remembered fondly for is getting rid of
the rotary before entering Cape Cod. With one stoke of the pen Romney
signed himself into the hall of fame for Governors forever remembered as
doing one great thing. Nobody knows, at this time, what you will do as
Governor that will endear you to the Massachusetts public, but I assure
you, returning all beaches to the public will guarantee your spot in
Massachusetts history. As a practical matter I'm sure there are more non
beach front voter than beach front voters. Read below!

Thank you for you time,

Michael Hatton

7 prospect Street

Norwell, MA 02061

781-987-1964

(From the Office of the Attorney General's website) Summertime! The
living is easy. Fish are jumpin\'. And right now somewhere along the
Massachusetts coast, two people are arguing over whether one of them may
walk along the other\'s beach.

Few issues in Massachusetts can be counted on as such a regular source
of conflict. One reason for this is that in the face of the overwhelming
desire for people to use our beaches, our laws are not very \"friendly\"
toward beach access. This is because, some 350 years ago, our
forefathers gave away much of the public\'s rights to use the coastline
in an attempt to spur the development of wharfs and maritime commerce.
On top of that, our laws in this area are complex, confusing, and- to an
extent that is surprising in light of centuries of court battles-
uncertain.

The result is conflict. Those who own property along the coast clash
with those who want to walk along it, often without either really
knowing what their rights and obligations are. Indeed, sometimes police
officers and other public officials called in to deal with this conflict
are themselves unclear about the respective rights and responsibilities.

The purpose of this guide is to try to help people understand the law in
this area, to the extent that it has been settled. We have tried to
provide simple answers to commonly-asked questions about the ownership
of the coast. Our hope is that by informing the public of the law, we
can move beyond needless conflicts and toward more consensual solutions
to the beach access issue. In particular, we have highlighted ways that
coastal owners who want to let the public gain access through or along
their property can do so while avoiding liability and at the same time
preserving their own property rights.

Of necessity, we can state what the public\'s rights are only in general
terms. There are many complications that may arise in individual
circumstances.

***"Note: here is the problem" Q: \"Someone told me that beaches are
privately owned in Massachusetts all the way down to the low tide line.
How can that be?\"***

A: Each state has its own laws regarding who owns the beach. In most
coastal states, the public owns the land seaward of the high tide line,
and in some states public ownership extends even higher. Massachusetts
is different, however. The Massachusetts courts have consistently ruled
that in the 1640s, we gave away title to the land between the mean high
tide line and the low tide line to the adjacent upland owners.
Therefore, this area- known as the \"intertidal zone\" or \"wet sand
area\" is- generally privately owned in Massachusetts.

(From the Massachusetts Office of Costal Management's website)
**Ownership of Tidelands**\
\"Tideland\" is the legal term for all land beneath the waters of the
ocean, including lands that are always submerged as well as those in the
intertidal area (i.e., between the high and low tide marks). In every
coastal state, the use of tidelands is governed by a concept in property
law known as the Public Trust Doctrine, which dates back centuries to
ancient Roman law. The doctrine states that all rights in tidelands and
the water itself are held by the state \"in trust\" for the benefit of
the public. In most states, this means that public ownership begins at
the high water mark.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony originally followed this rule, until its
legislators decided to transfer ownership of certain tidelands to
coastal landowners, in order to encourage private wharf construction on
these so-called \"intertidal flats.\" This general land grant was
accomplished by the Colonial Ordinances of 1641-47, which in effect
moved the line between public and private property to the low water
mark, but not farther seaward of the high water mark than \"100 rods,\"
or 1,650 feet. This intertidal area (now called \"private tidelands\")
is presumed to belong to the upland property owner, unless legal
documentation proves otherwise for a given parcel (as is true in certain
segments of Provincetown, for example).

Although the Colonial Ordinance changed the ownership of most intertidal
flats from public to private, it did not transfer all property rights
originally held in trust by the state. For one thing, no rights to the
water itself (as distinct from the underlying lands) were relinquished
by the Ordinance. Moreover, the law specifically reserved for the public
the right to continue to use private tidelands for three
purposes-fishing, fowling, and navigation.

Also, courts have made it clear that the public right to use this area
does not include the right to simply stroll, sunbathe, or otherwise
engage in recreation unrelated to fishing, fowling, or navigation.
Without permission from the landowner, such general recreation is
trespassing.

(From New Jersey beach access, the courts in New Jersey used the Public
Doctrine to return beaches to the public)

# New Jersey Beach Access

### Policies

According to New Jersey\'s [2001
Assessment](http://www.state.nj.us/dep/special/309/), the public trust
doctrine, which was enunciated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in
several decisions, requires that tidal water bodies be accessible to the
general public for navigation, fishing, and recreation. The Court also
recognized the \"increasing demand for our State\'s beach and the
dynamic nature of the public trust doctrine,\"\' and found that the
public must be given both access to and use of privately owned dry sand
areas as is reasonably necessary to use the tidal water bodies. In order
to facilitate and enhance public access to the Public Trust lands, the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is considering
the development of written guidelines and/or agreements with local
municipalities to describe the limits of accessible tidal areas
consistent with New Jersey case law.