Opinion ID: 2302071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Regulation of State Wetlands

Text: Before considering the actual procedures, it is important to note some general propositions that govern those procedures. First, the requirement of a license and the Board's authority to issue one are entirely statutory. Though implemented to a large extent by regulations adopted either by the Board ( see COMAR 23.02.04) or by DOE ( see COMAR 26.24), the nature of the activities on State wetlands that require a license, the authority of the Board to issue a license, the nature of a license, some of the conditions which may be attached to it, and the procedures and basic ground rules for the issuance of a license are provided by the statutes in ENV, title 16, subtitles 1 and 2. Except that those aspects of regulation must comport with basic due process, they are not Constitutionally mandated and are not within any inherent power of the Board. The Legislature, if it wished, could have delegated that authority to any State agency. Some of the applicable regulations, unfortunately, are not easy to follow and interpret, especially when read in conjunction with the statutes. The Board regulations and the DOE regulations overlap to some degree, and, in part through cross-references to each other and to the statutes, they appear to contain exceptions to exceptions and other facial ambiguities. Some parts of the license procedure are dealt with in the Board's regulations and other parts in the DOE regulations, requiring one to bounce back and forth between them to see the whole picture. Persons who deal regularly with those regulations may have no problem understanding these intricacies, but, for the uninitiated, they are a challenge. ENV § 16-202(a) precludes a person from dredging or filling on State wetlands without a license. Dredging is defined in § 16-101(e) as the removal or displacement by means of soil, sand, gravel, shells, or other material, whether or not of intrinsic value, from any State or private wetlands. The term filling is defined in § 16-101(f). It is a longer definition because it lists the things it expressly includes and excludes, but generally it means [t]he displacement of navigable water by the depositing into State or private wetlands of soil, sand, gravel, shells, or other materials or [t]he artificial alteration of navigable water levels by any physical structure, drainage ditch, or otherwise. That is the extent of the Board's authority to issue, or deny, a license. [3] The term license is not defined in either the general definitions applicable to the Environment Article as a whole (§ 1-101) or in the definitions applicable to title 16 (§ 16-101). The only definition appears in the regulations. COMAR 23.02.04.01A defines a wetland license as the authorization issued by the Board of Public Works under Environment Article, Title 16 ... for the performance of dredging, filling, the construction of structures, or the conduct of certain other activities on land and waters of the State which are tidal wetlands. A license, it continues, authorizes construction during a specified period and sanctions the licensed use of State lands and waters but does not convey ownership of lands below the mean high water line or tidal waters of the State or the affected air space or diminish the full and free use and enjoyment of the tidal waters of the State by the public. In that latter regard, paragraph 01D of the regulation makes clear that the regulations governing State wetland licenses do not address the full range of fiduciary and proprietary responsibilities of the Board relating to the private use of State wetlands, which may be considered by the Board of Public Works through easement, lease, quitclaim deed, or other instrument to protect the State's interests or to convey an interest in State wetlands. COMAR 23.02.04.05 provides for three types of licensea general license, an individual license, and an expedited license. A general license is a standing authorization, subject to periodic review and readoption by the Board, for any of the eleven recurrent or minimally disruptive activities listed in paragraph 05A(3) of the regulation. According to the regulation, DOE determines the applicant's qualifications for a general license and actually forwards the license to a qualified applicant. See § .04.05A(3). COMAR 26.24.02.04C., which is a regulation of DOE, provides that an authorization under a general license expires three years after it is issued. An individual license is required for construction or activities not listed in COMAR 23.02.04.02A, [4] or construction or activity subject to delegation to DOE under COMAR 23.02.04.04. An expedited license is limited to cases of emergency conditions or undue hardship. The record does not reveal what kind of license was at issue here, but, as none of the parties have made that an issue in the case, we shall assume that it is not one. We note only that there is no indication of any emergency or undue hardship or that the authorizations would have expired after three years. With exceptions not relevant here, only a person with a riparian interest in upland adjacent to the State wetlands or that person's agent may apply for a license. COMAR 26.24.02.02A. The application is made to DOE, which evaluates it in light of 19 criteria set forth in COMAR 26.24.02.03. Those criteria include, among other things (i) ecological, developmental, recreational, and aesthetic values of tidal wetlands in order to preserve them and prevent their despoliation and loss, (ii) the proprietary interests of the Board over State wetlands, and (iii) the degree to which dredging and filling activities can be avoided or minimized, will alter or destroy tidal wetlands, are consistent with Federal, State, and local land use plans, and will provide facilities for the handling of storm water runoff and sanitary wastes. In determining whether to grant a permit to conduct regulated activity on private wetlands, DOE is required by statute to provide both an opportunity for an informational hearing before making an initial decision on the application, and a contested case hearing, if one is timely requested, following notice of the initial decision. See ENV §§ 16-307(d) and 5-204. That is not the case, however, with respect to its review of an application for a license to dredge or fill State wetlands. The only statutory provision with respect to the role of DOE in that regard is ENV § 16-202(f), which provides that (1) the Secretary shall assist the Board in determining whether to issue a license to dredge or fill State wetlands, and (2) after consultation with interested Federal, State, and local units, the Department shall issue a public notice, hold any requested hearing, take any evidence the Secretary deems advisable, and submit a report indicating whether the license should be granted and, if so what if any terms, conditions, and consideration should be required. That statutory requirement is amplified by both Board and DOE regulations. COMAR 23.02.04.06A., a Board regulation, requires DOE to hold an informational hearing, either on written request or its own determination that a hearing is in the public interest. Although the informational hearing is not a contested case hearing, the applicant and other interested persons must be given the opportunity to present evidence and argument. Questions may be asked, but cross-examination is not allowed. Id. After the informational hearing and consideration of the 19 environmental criteria set forth in COMAR 26.24.02.03, DOE forwards its Report and recommendations. The Report and recommendations must be based on the five legal criteria stated in COMAR 23.02.04.07legal requirements, information compiled during site visits, consultations with governmental units, evidence admitted during the public informational hearing, and comments submitted by public and governmental units. The Report and recommendations must state whether the license should be granted, any terms and conditions to which it should be subject, and all relevant findings and documentation. Id. Although ENV § 16-202(f) does not specify to whom the DOE Report and Recommendation are submitted, they are, in fact, submitted to the Wetlands Administrator. There is nothing in the Code regarding even the existence, much less the role, of that official. The functions of the Wetlands Administrator are set forth in the Board's regulations, in particular COMAR 23.02.04.08 and .09. [5] The Administrator receives the DOE Report and recommendations, evaluates it, and makes an independent recommendation to the Board. COMAR 23.02.04.08 provides for two situationsConcurrence Cases and Extraordinary Cases. Concurrence cases are those in which the Administrator concurs in the DOE recommendation. They are cases which: (1) Are within the rights of a riparian owner; (2) Are recommended for approval by the Department; (3) Are recommended for approval by the Administrator under the same terms and conditions, if any, specified in the Department's report and recommendation; and (4) Have no substantial or long term adverse effect on State wetlands.  COMAR 23.02.04.08A. (Emphasis added). Extraordinary cases are those in which (1) a public informational hearing is held; (2) the recommendations of the Department and the Administrator are inconsistent; (3) denial of a license is recommended by the Department or the Administrator; (4) a proposed structure or activity involves substantial destruction or loss of State wetlands; (5) a proposed structure or activity involves substantial public interest or public works; (6) the case involves a recommendation that compensation be assessed or that a bond be posted; (7) request has been made for release of a bond; or (8) substantial objection to a proposed structure or activity has been made involving a request for personal appearance before the Board. (Emphasis added). COMAR 23.02.04.08B. The Board is not required to hold a hearing as such. It may, but is not required to, permit persons to appear before the Board. See COMAR 23.02.04.09B (The Board reserves the right to decline to hear personal appearance testimony based upon the merits of the information before it). The Board's action is guided by both statute and regulations. ENV § 16-202(g)(1) [which was § 16-202(c)(1) when the Board acted in this case] provides: Upon receipt of a report by the Secretary [of DOE], the Board shall decide if issuance of the license is in the best interest of the State, taking into account the varying ecological, economic, developmental, recreational, and aesthetic values each application presents. If the Board decides to issue the license, the issuance of the license shall be for consideration and on terms and conditions the Board determines. Every license shall be in writing. COMAR 23.02.04.10 provides: The Board shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny any individual or expedited license sufficient to the attainment of riparian rights the Board determines to be reasonable in accordance with the best interests of the State. In making its determination with respect to each application, the Board shall consider the recommendations of the Department and the Administrator, public testimony at any hearing, and information available in the public record, and shall take into account the varying ecological, economic, developmental, recreational, and aesthetic values to preserve the wetlands and prevent their despoliation and destruction. Finally, in terms of procedure, ENV § 16-204, as it read when the Board acted in this case, when the action for judicial review was filed, and when the hearing in that action was conducted, provided that [a]ny party to the proceedings aggrieved by the decision of the Board, may petition the circuit court of the county where the land is located within 30 days after receiving the decision. The appeal shall be heard on the record compiled before the Board. [6]